< 10 September	12 September >

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) 23:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sakhile Hlongwa[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Mynhardt definitely received coverage following his signing with Chiefs: [1], but it's all about his future potential rather than something he had accomplished. The same appears to be the case for Gordinho, Mtsweni and Hlongwa. Won't quite pass GNG and fails NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 20:29, 12 September 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) 23:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Spalvis[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Footballer who has not played a professional game. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. He has played in the Danish cup since the last deletion, but since this was a match a against a lower division club, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The player in question has been called up to his national side, so must meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.4.196 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 17 September 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 deleted this, but it was recreated. It's not common practice, I believe, for the deleting admin to close the AfD in a case like this, but I don't see why it would be problematic, and then we can move on to the next AfD. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Belcher[edit]

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

I added the WP:PRODBLP at first (because neither of the external links are a reference of anything the article currently has or had. But I change it to AFD as the constant re-creation has persisted. According to Liz, the lattest re-creator, Belcher is notable. In more than five years no one has proven why Belcher passes the minimal criteria of WP:GNG, or explained why his bio can't be located at Selmedica, as he is/was their CEO. Google refs only speak about this event of his life, no more. If he has notability aside from Selmedica it can be kept, but the article nowhere indicates he is notable on his own. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. The only sources I can find are those related to his arrest and prosecution[2][3], which isn't enough to build a biography on. Should probably be redirected to Selmedica - although that company itself has notability issues, and may have to be considered for deletion itself. But either way, we definitely shouldn't have a BLP here. Robofish (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore a few rules here and cut this short. The history is one of BLP violations, its current state is dramatic, and its future will have to be rewritten from scratch. If someone wants to create that redirect they can go ahead; I don't see much of a need for it. In addition to the BLP issue, I'll name A7: the article in its current or past state makes no believable claim to notability. Someone doing some business and maybe getting in trouble is not a reason in itself for having an article. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 17 September 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) without prejudice for improving and expanding the article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Hills Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Delete.~~ Userfy into User:SimonTrew's space per his request.

This article has been ((notability))-tagged for the last 4 years. I have done a Google Books search, looked through about nine pages of results, and was unimpressed. I also did a Google News Archive search customized to exclude press releases, some trade publications, and one local website. Then I looked through every single search-results page. It returned lots of hits but nothing that impressed me. I want to see articles in major mainstream media, not just articles in trade publications. WP:CORPDEPTH says that neither coverage in "media of limited interest and circulation", nor coverage in local media, are enough. Passing mentions don't help either. Please show me something impressive: maybe some significant coverage in The New York Times or the print version of BusinessWeek. But if we can't find any suitable mainstream sources, I think it's time for our article to be removed from mainspace.

P.S. Our article also reads like a news release. I'm a firm believer in a theory I once read — that, regarding articles on non-notable topics, COI editors tend to out-edit the COI fighters.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading up on Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and I conclude that User:Unforgettableid has no case. There is nothing in that guideline that excludes trade journal text from being a secondary source in general or from being used to signify notability in particular. User:Unforgettableids sources are only personal views. If it had been the intention of the Notability guidelines to exclude trade journals it would have been an easy task to mention them explicitly. Trade journals are obviously not (or at least not obviously) ”of limited interest and circulation” or equivalent to ”local media”. gnirre (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure, they've been around a long while (I used to use their embedded C compiler about 20 years ago). Because their products are mainly used for embedded software, it's not that surprising that they don't get much outside the trade press, but if the trade press is from widely circulated publications e.g. Computer Weekly then I would say it is WP:N (obviously not just a press release in there). Of course, their early history won't be easily found as WP:RS on the Internet, nor their use in military applications. But I've not heard of their compilers being used at all as a reference platform (for language standardisation etc.), so perhaps they do really only qualify as a niche provider these days (the marker for WP:PRIMARY is telling).

I'd love to try to rustle together something more suitable, but I'm not going to remove the PROD because I probably won't have time to do so, and it can always be recreated later. But it saddens me a little to see it go.

PS I also find it amusing that on a previous AfD for this article one vote for deletion was on the grounds that "A backround check shows that this private company is not quoted on any stock exchange, and hence is only of interest to its owners and employees."

Customers?

Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon. The British Computer Weekly and the American ComputerWorld are definitely "media of limited interest". The only reason why they attained such large circulation is because they were mailed for free to qualifying IT workers. The mediocre community newspaper in my area also has attained a surprisingly large circulation, since it also is distributed for free. Do you agree that we can count free IT trade magazines as "media of limited interest and circulation" even if they have large unpaid-circulation numbers? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned Computer Weekly as an example of a trade publication that is presumably (but irrelevantly) WP:N but more WP:RS. I think most British readers would rely on it being accurate. (I don't even get a free copy these days.)

I agree circulation has nothing to do with it, but I would imagine if a reader saw in CW that Green Hills had gone bust, they would believe it – in that sense it is a RS. In other words, the circulation numbers are not that important, but the number of people who actually read it is. Some literary magazines have tiny circulations but are very influential and in that sense RS.

I'm digressing rather, but I think the business of RS/PRIMARY sometimes gets silly because it can amount to saying "don't get it from the horse's mouth, rely on second-hand gossip". When the things being sourced are hard facts that no-one is likely to dispute, it seems silly to go around the houses to get some secondary source, which when it comes to press releases etc are little more and often less than the primary source repeated. In that sense, AP, Reuters and so on should not be considered RS when regurgitating press releases. On the other hand, a public company's audited accounts should be considered RS even though they publish themm themselves, there is little point trogging down to Companies House or the SEC or whatever to receive the same information verbatim.

But anyway, nobody is suggesting we include non-RS content. A fat article in CW would, in my opinion, count as RS not because of its circulation but because of its readership, i.e. professionals who would be likely to call it in for getting slipshod.

That's all by the by for the AfD and just me ruminating. I'm not making a stand for this article, it's more just a slight pang of sadness to see it go. Perhaps it can be userified to me, if it does? That way I can try to make amends some time. Si Trew (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, to summarize your two key points: You said why you think trade publications are reliable sources. (I still think WP:CORPDEPTH implies that they don't establish notability.) Also, you requested userfication. (OK; I have changed my vote to "userfy".) Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

”I still think WP:CORPDEPTH implies that they don't establish notability” – Why? What is your problem with trade press? Mainstream media gets many of its stories from trade press. I'd say trade press is often a much better source that mainstream media. I don't know the Wikipedia definition of "notability", but I hope it means ”worthy of notice” rather than ”has happened to be noticed by mainstream media".gnirre (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting what User:Ihcoyc has written elsewhere: "The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world. Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business." Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some trade publications are not independent. I think we can all agree not to use non-editorially-independent material as reliable sources. This should, though, not exclude us from using other content from trade journals. So what if they are not read by anyone outside the trade? A great part of wikipedia is based on specialist knowledge. Notability does not mean "known by the general public” or ”covered by general media”. I could maybe agree that it could medan "could well have been covered by general media”. I understand the reasoning around ”local coverage” but the comparison to trade texts being somehow ”local” does not make sense. You are presenting the views of one person. Have his views been somehow canonized by the Wikipedia community? He is making a free interpretation of "local coverage". You should not delete an article based on some guys interpretations. gnirre (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [4] —Ruud 20:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rudy.

Your link points to Google Books. I have now looked through about nine pages of Google Books search results pages for significant coverage of the company, but had trouble finding any.

WP:PRODUCT says: "A specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result."

But you want the company article itself to be kept. Please, if you have time, leaf through the Google Books results. Please find a few actual specific examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. Preferably each including one lengthy paragraph, or more, about the company itself. Did you take a look? Were you able to find anything?

I shall send you a ((talkback)) template to point you back here.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Green Hills Software was founded in 1982 by president and CEO Dan O'Dowd, who owns 97% of the company. Customers include Boeing, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola. Rival Wind River Systems filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ..."[5]
"Some of the challenges of using RTOSs include the fact that while there are some big players, such as Wind River (maker of VxWorksTM) and Green Hills Software (maker of IntegrityTM), there are literally hundreds of RTOSs in use today, and ..."
"The [Boeing] 787 used COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) operating system software by Green Hills Software and Wind River ..."
"When setting the license agreements for your software, ... An example is the disagreement between Express Logic and Green Hills software. It appears that Green Hills became a reseller of Express Logic's ThreadX RTOS, and eventually developed an equivalent, micro Velosity. Claiming that ..."
"In the underlying action, Microtec was sued by Green Hills Software, Inc. for allegedly passing off Green Hills' compiler code as its own. The complaint included claims for false designation of origin, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade ..."
"At the start of 2005, Green Hills Software Inc. filed a lawsuit against Wind River, after the latter attempted to quit a 99-year cooperative agreement between the two companies before the time limit was up. ..."
From The New York Times: "Besides Metrowerks, the noteworthies include Cygnus, Greenhills Software, Imprise, Integrated Systems and Wind River Systems."
From BusinessWeek: "Potential acquisition targets for chipmakers like Freescale and others could include makers of software and related tools for the non-PC computing market, such as MontaVista Software, Green Hills Software, and QNX Software Systems International."

Seems to be more than enough to establish notability of the company and fill a decent article with. —Ruud 02:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ruud, for spending the time to collect out this information. I hope this will put an end to the AfD debate, and we can all go back to doing something useful. This is a great resume of what has been going on around Green Hills, and a lot it of chould go into the article. There was also a famous fight between WR and GHS one their safety critical merits that could go in here. gnirre (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rudy: I see no problem with 1; good find. But: 2 is not significant coverage. I don't see significant coverage in 3 either. 4, 5, and 6 seem to be about lawsuits. I'm not sure whether 4/5/6 help show notability or not; can anyone please weigh in? 7 and 8 are nothing but passing mentions. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article deals almost exclusively with its products, not the company size, actions events etcetera. If the products are notable then they deserve articles of their own. AadaamS (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't get why Trade Publications is not a good source. I work at one, I think, so, I am partial, probably. But please explain that again to me. ”I want to see articles in major mainstream media”? Can I make a comparison to the coverage of Linux sub-subjects? List of Linux distributions is a good start of you want to find links to companies that never are mentioned in mainstream media. Would it make sense to delete them? If some mainstream media decides to portray the ceo of Green Hills in an interview, would that suddenly make Green Hills Software notable? Why? Why does Intel have a Wikipedia entry? ARM? The line that separates notable electronic companies from non-notable seems to me to be rather arbitrary if it is based simply on what companies that mainstream media has happened to find an interest in. Close example: Wind River is a company similar to Green Hills Software – if GHS should go, Wind River should go also. But then Intel bought Wind River Systems. Did that suddenly make Wind River notable? If Intel would have bought Green Hills Software – then Green Hills would have been notable? gnirre (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more articles should be deleted, feel free to nominate them too for deletion. AadaamS (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that my point is the opposite. gnirre (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point was indeed obvious, but imho not so relevant to the discussion we ought to have. Your point did not explain how Green Hills software lives up to WP:GNG (which is the deletion criterion), only that trade publications may qualify as WP:RS. If you want to keep the article the best thing you can do is to improve the article, which currently mostly deals with its products not the company itself. So you think the company is notable? Then you must have proof in the form of WP:RS and nothing stops you from improving the article with said sources, or doing the same with all the other companies you mention. AadaamS (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this article is AfD:d because Unforgettableid considers trade publications not qualified to be second hand sources. Read what he writes on this page. If you have domain knowledge of the embedded industry it is obvious that GHS is notable. Finding trade press refs to show this should be no problem at all. Thus discussing the qualifications of trade press is relevant. The fact that this article is under threat to be deleted is an argument against spending time improving it. Because if it is deleted, you would have been wasting your time. gnirre (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was already wondering whether you actually care about the article being deleted or if you are more interested in preserving the status of trade press as WP:RS. Clearly the latter. AadaamS (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are going for here. I care about this article. I have contributed to it in the past. I fought for its quality against shills a few years ago – if you think it sucks now, you should have seen it then! Now I am fighting to preserve it from some deletionist subspecies. I've probably consulted it also, so I have personal use for it. If the status of trade press as a reliable source (RS?) is at stake, in any form, I care about that too, but I don't know anything about that issue, if it exists, apart from the writings of Unforgettableid on this page. gnirre (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's deleted, you can then transwiki it to an alternative wiki, or to a forum post or personal website, if you like. —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely correct. There's nothing wrong with a trade pub. The same standards apply as with any source we might consider at AfD. We're looking for reliable independent secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. LOTS of articles in LOTS of trade pubs qualify. Sure, there's also lots of stuff we can't use, e.g., articles written by individuals with close ties to the subject, interviews that consist only of the CEO saying whatever he likes, coverage of their press releases, etc. But tutorials, news and market analysis, reviews, comparisons, etc., are all potentially helpful. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment of 20:12, 16 September 2013, above, argues against your point. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the article is badly written and poorly sourced. That, however, is not our concern at AfD. Here, our only concern is notability. The question at AfD is not whether appropriate sources have been cited, but whether they exist. I'm satisfied they do based on searches for their name + "C compiler" or their name + "integrity" (the name of their embedded OS). For example, P.J. Plauger's Embedded C++: An Overview discusses their compiler work and Philip Hunter's Linux security: separating myth from reality, Network Security, Vol 2004, Issue 8, Aug 2004, pp 8-9, discusses their OS work. (Sorry, you need to log in as I did, e.g., with a university ID, to read the Hunter paper.) Msnicki (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Msnicki. I've not done much in the way of AfDs for companies so this may be a easy question. Regarding the Plauger cite, Green Hills is mentioned five times in the article:

"Green Hills software is now marketing their embedded compiler products with full EC++ support."
"Green Hills software is a leading vendor of compilers for the embedded marketplace."
"Green Hills has a major customer who decided last year to adopt Embedded C++ as an internal standard for embedded projects."
"Dinkumware supplied the necessary hybrid library to Green Hills, who in turn supplied the customer."
"Green Hills has settled on the name Embedded Template C++ (ETC++) for the combined language and library."

As best I can tell, there's very little here that would go into the Green Hills article. While the paper is certainly a reliable source (and would make a solid source for an article on Embedded Template C++), I don't see it being a reliable source for Green Hills. Using the language from WP:NSOFT I would call this a "passing mention"

All that being said, I understand that guidelines for one domain don't necessarily apply the same way to other domains, and for establishing notability of a business the Plauger article may be significant or sufficient. I'd appreciate any guidance you'd care to give. Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just the sentences that mention Green Hills. But surrounding each of those sentences are other sentences about EC++ support, the embedded marketplace, etc., providing the context for why Plauger thought it interesting to mention Green Hills. I wouldn't hold this article up as the gold standard of articles establishing notability but I found it sufficient. YMMV. Msnicki (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Unforgettableid: Yes, you have hit the nail on the thumb. Sorry, I do tend to pack the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought. Userfy to me if it goes, please; and I think the point of the policy on trade pubs is not whether they are RS but whether they are in themselves N. Presumably you can be RS without being N, else there would not be the need for both separately. Si Trew (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it does go keep, I hope Ruud will add all that to the article. Thanks Ruud.

I have some sentiment with "we can all go back to doing something useful", but if we get a decent article out of this, then that is useful. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist; I was supposed to be translating an article about a French railway viaduct architect (cos, er, people are panting out to find out that kind of stuff), but ended up correcting the diacritical marks in references to poor old Szőllősy, commenting on whether the instructions to the ANTIC processor on an Atari 8-bit are programs, why there is stuff in the article on languages of the EU about Esperanto, which isn't one, and how many beans make five. One day I might get some work done, but then, nobody forces us to come here. Si Trew (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company and its products have survived the test of time (older than a good chunk of Wikipedia readers), and the main problem is one of recentism in getting web-based sources. There should be enough to justify one article, just would take some work to dig out. Agree the article now has severe sourcing problems since it is just a bullet-list of products from the web site written only in present tense. Alas, a private company that makes money from quietly shipping useful products does not need all the hype in popular press that venture-funded ones do. And perhaps even merge Integrity (operating system) into this? I see Μ-velOSity already does point back here, so those wikilinks are misleading. At least we finally have one technical article that does not say it does cloud solutions! W Nowicki (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point about recentism. Finding sources (see above for the two I cited) was more difficult than I expected and I came to the same conclusion. In the early to mid-80s, the early days of PCs and workstations, Green Hills was the go-to source for a C compiler. Among developers, their C compiler was as well-known and respected then as gcc is today. I'm not generally fond of the "I know it" argument but this is a case where I do know Green Hills got a lot of coverage 30 years ago but it's not easily found today. Msnicki (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone contacted GH's PR department? They probably keep a corporate "scrapbook" of coverage and might be able to supply pointers to reliable sources. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear closing admin: I'm not sure whether or not you will relist this nomination in order to offer the "Keep" voters more time to find sources. But I ask one favor; if you do, then it would be great if you could please say so. You could use a comment such as, for example, ((relist|Relisting in order to offer the "Keep" voters more time to find sources)). Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:59, 16 September 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) 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Earl Zeeb[edit]

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

This article needs huge cleanup, but I'm pretty sure that even when properly formatted, there would be no real claim of notability here. This is a BLP of a university football player. He is not mentioned anywhere except on a page of the university website, it seems. He fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Benboy00 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I agree with the nom. The page could be cleaned up, but it wouldn't fix the notability issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom - non notable 11:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete in addition to above, appears to be self-promotion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 12 September 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) 00:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rittz[edit]

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

Vast majority of sources are to sites selling his music or to iTunes pages doing the same. only one non-commercial reference. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the sources, his debut album The Life And Times Of Jonny Valiant charted at #25 on the Bilboard 200 therefore the article easily passes any of the guidelines. Koala15 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A significant failure of WP:BEFORE. Rittz meets many of the points at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. His album The Life and Times of Jonny Valiant charted in the top 30 of the Billboard 200. STATic message me! 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources available online ([6][7][8][9][10]). At minimum, subject meets WP:GNG and criteria 1 and 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 03:02, 12 September 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) 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nilender Prakash Punj[edit]

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

This was originally PRODed (by myself) on the basis that notability is not inherited. An IP removed the PROD, with an edit summary that improvements would be forthcoming. None have occured. However, today another IP tried to re-PROD the article on the basis of lack of notability. Obviously, that PROD is incorrect, but I think it is time to bring this here for a deletion discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 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 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A man with a job, that much we can confirm from his company's website (or will be able to do so, once they fix the 404), but no evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not full-fill notability criteria and ref is not reliable sources. (182.68.146.19 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Article is not as per Wikipedia criteria and lack of reliable references. Google also not able to search much about this person. (117.198.141.33 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binyamin Goldman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No sources. Google hits on social networking sites or other people. DarkAudit (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I retrieved the link to one of the subject's roles mentioned in the article, but it amounted to one piece of user-submitted content. No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably A7 as the article doesn't really claim any notability, fails WP:BIO. Secret ^account 06:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreeing with most of the above, there's an additional item to note. The sources for the article don't actually discuss the subject of the article (Goldman) but other companies he's been involved in. Therefore, it does seem to fit under A7 fairly well; yet my concerns are heightened at the lack of reliable sources. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

onbvious and speedy delete article creator has only made his and its the same name. Though his talk page says other COI's. THe source is also to the website that this person wrote on.Lihaas (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would have speedied this if I had seen it with a CSD tag, but don't want to subvert the process now it's here. No assertions of notability or reliable sources of any kind. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Snowball I think it's better to shorten proceedings when it's clear the target is utterly non-notable (and the creator has a conflict of interest as well) per WP:SNOWBALL. I think it's clear that this should have been speedy deleted rather than going to AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I erred on the side of caution with that CEO claim. That could be considered an "assertion of notability". DarkAudit (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2012 (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) 23:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Payroll Association (IPASS)[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. the limited coverage i could find is one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. — O'Dea (talk) 18:23, 7 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability per WP:ORG. Snappy (talk) 20:38, 15 September 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 Universal Eclectic Wicca . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coven of the Far Flung Net[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal Eclectic Wicca. Trivial mentions and a lack of Google hits leads me to believe that this is not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:12, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal Eclectic Wicca per NinjaRobotPirate. Seems like a sensible solution given the lack of significant coverage. Stalwart111 01:27, 12 September 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 Female Gridiron League of Queensland. Redirect to Female Gridiron League of Queensland. Will save the history. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenmore Panthers[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team, founded last year. No independent showing of notability. Neutrality^talk 19:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Female Gridiron League of Queensland. Title is useful as a redirect. I agree that the team is not independently notable; however, the league appears to be. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Kenmore Panthers place in Australia sporting history is indisputable. They played in the FIRST ever sanctioned game of women's gridiron EVER played in Australia in the first women's gridiron league on August 24, 2012, were minor premiers in said league in its first year and also played in the FIRST championship game of women's gridiron EVER played on November 2, 2013. Video evidence of this sporting history has been added to this article. Their notable place in history needs to be recorded. 124.187.111.165 (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "video evidence" appears to be produced by the league. If their place in sporting history were so indisputable, where is there such a lack of coverage in secondary sources? The only clearly independent source is talking about the start of training for the second season primarily, not the games from last season. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The producer of video evidence is irrelevant. Evidence is evidence. The lack of coverage at the point of inception is also irrelevant. There has been increased coverage this year including a half page story in Queensland largest selling newspaper the Courier Mail (yes people still read them) and various articles in local newspapers. A player from one of the teams is being interviewed by ABC radio this Friday to talk about FGLQ season 2. The fact they will be talking about season two, as the independent source you referred to notes, meant there was a season one. This team played the first game in that season and in the final, in the first season of sanctioned women's gridiron ever played in Australia. I'm not going to add anymore. The evidence and references already provided back up the notability and historical significance of this sporting team. It's indisputable in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Pgollan (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: this user created the article. Neutrality^talk 14:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pgollan, there is no reliable, independent, significant external coverage. Period. "Importance" doesn't matter. It's about notability. Neutrality^talk 14:42, 6 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have to go this way, too. I'm not finding the independent sources we like to find. Should the sources be found I'll change my position--and if they come up in the future, we'll be ready for themn.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:00, 17 September 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 Ultra Monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Guts[edit]

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

As with most 'monster of the week' non-recurring villains, there is insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the requirements for an article. See also WP:NOTPLOT. While normally I would suggest a merge into either a characters list or an episodes list, neither appear to exist in a form that would make merging a suitable option, with the closest approximation to a characters list being Ultra Monsters, which is not a prose list, or possibly List of Ultraman monsters, which seems limited in scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this from the anime and manga deletion sorting page, since I don't think it is related to anime/manga. Calathan (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Wrong one. Will fix. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly Redirect to Ultra Monsters). This seems well suited to Wikia, but it's clearly not notable enough for Wikipedia. A redirect won't hurt anything, but it seems a bit pointless. It's like making a redirect to Scooby Doo for some bad guy that they unmasked in 1969. Do people actually search for this stuff? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails to assert notability. TTN (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect It is not significant enough for a separate article, but it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 19 September 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 Acland baronets. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Acland, 3rd Baronet[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:NOTABILITY having gained "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Warden (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Acland baronets, which has already been done for 2nd baronet. The article indicates nothing but his genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still say redirect. As the article exists at present, he has had no significant attention save in genealogical works. Burke's Peerage says he died in his minority. He was not even old enough to do anything to make him notable. As he is clearly NN, we should not ahve a substantive article, but a redirect is cheap.

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 Ultra Series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Ultra[edit]

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

While a recurring character, there does not appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to justify an article (i.e. it doesn't meet WP:GNG). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've removed this from the anime and manga deletion sorting page, since I don't think it is related to anime/manga. Calathan (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above: oops, will fix. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultra Series (or Ultraman). No assertion of notability. Google search returns nothing useable, though there might be Japanese sources; if so, I see no reason why it can't be recreated, as long as it makes some claim to notability and lists some sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. Either way, it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect I can't myself say it's significant enough for a separate article, but it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 19 September 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 Ultra Monsters#Ultra Q. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gomess[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Appears in a few episodes but I can find no reliable sources, and there isn't any sourcing at the Wikia page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to it failing to establish notability and unlikelihood of anything being found to accomplish that. TTN (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultra Monsters#Ultra Q. Possible search term (per WP stats, the page is actually visited about 2500/3000 times a year) and redirects are cheap. Cavarrone 05:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect I can't myself determine if it's significant enough for a separate article, but it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 19 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes (Arthur Loves Plastic album)[edit]

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

I am nominating a group of remix albums by the one artist. They lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Just a bunch on bad external links trying to publicise the album. The only references are the artist own site, internet archive, garageband. None independent reliable sources. The external links are just linkspam. Others nominated are:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 August 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:27, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At random I plugged in Now 83 and find that every album in the Now Series has not only a page (judging by the navbox) but presumably a redirect or two. These are basically list articles which sometimes have a lead that says it topped the compilation charts, otherwise just the date of publication and a track listing. Many are marked for lack of sources. Are they, in itself, notable? The individual songs are, at face value, notable, and the series itself is probably notable, but are compilations/remixes de facto notable? I presume so, but fail to see how: we'd end up listing every (issue of every) chart and every entry on it, by their mutual assertions of notability. Which I imagine, alas, is the case. Si Trew (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate list articles don't have to be notable in themselves. But these articles, which are list articles, don't claim to be, so should stand on their own feet. Most of the "Now That's What I Call Music" articles should go, too. Si Trew (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire & Flavor[edit]

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

Contested CSD. Refs often PR/duplicating news release. Inc. Mag. not enough for WP:CORP. Promotional: "... to develop a unique line of BBQ items ..." Dewritech (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 28 August 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly not the largest or most well established cooking products company, but it's received some news coverage. I think it's enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:47, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 11 September 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) 21:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Haykin[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable venture capitalists. Article has no real sources, Google hits show no hits for his name. Article was written with a promotional tone, in general, which I already scaled back. The company that Randy founded, Outlook Ventures, doesn't appear to have standalone notability either. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My preference would be for someone to delete what's there and rewrite it based on reliable independent sources, but the a Google News search shows sufficient coverage of this biographical subject to warrant inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google News search shows up exactly ZERO results. Please explain. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do a Google News search: do a Google News Archive search. I see about four pages of results. Surely some are press releases and some are merely local coverage. I haven't looked to see whether or not any significant regional or national coverage is there in the results list. If there's no such coverage, then there's probably no reason to keep the article. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:46, 9 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cleaned up the article some, plus I found outside sources and added them. It needs more cleanup but it appears to pass WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see room for improvement, but I don't think notability is an issue. Here's two more sources from the Huffington Post. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:11, 14 September 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) 23:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Jain[edit]

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

The subject of this BLP seems non-notable. Both of the references listed are user generated, and I cant find any information relating to the "Rajiv Gandhi Rashtra Nirman" award. Benboy00 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Both books are self-published (with "publishing company" sharing the name of the article creator). Didn't find a single relevant review for the author or the book. The award the author supposedly won appears to be a work of fiction rather than an award for fiction. Abecedare (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same findings as Abecedare. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 15:05, 12 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Yamashita (actress)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. BLP with no sources or significant claims to notability. hiroko yamashita actress -wikipedia returns four IMDB pages and a bunch of "Results for similar searches," such as a linguist with the same name. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The name is rather common--as are the kanji 山下裕子--but this is a fairly prominent actress who has worked mostly on television and the stage. She is in the Talent Databank ([11]) and the TV Star Web Directory ([12]), and has appeared in some 58 TV dramas according to the TV Drama Database ([13]), including the popular Onsen e iko franchise [14]. On stage, she was a member of Shoji Kokami's troupe, Daisan Butai, but also appeared frequently in plays directed by Yukio Ninagawa, Hideki Noda (playwright), and Makoto Sato ([15]). Searching the national newspaper, Asahi Shimbun (using a subscription only database), produces a number of hits, but mostly just from reviews of her plays or shows. The only article exclusively on her I could find in that paper was from October 18, 2003, on p. 34. So while I could not find a lot of articles just on her, there's good evidence she has a solid career in both stage and television, and thus passes criterion 1 in WP:NACTOR. Michitaro (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Keep - the reason the stub is stubby is probably more because she's a middle-aged actress and doesn't have a fanboy base rather than actual notability. http://news.goo.ne.jp/entertainment/talent/W93-3119.html doesn't have the full list of TV soaps of the ja.wp article, but can't help thinking if we bothered to search on those shows + her name such as http://www.google.com/search?q="山下裕子"+"温泉へ行こう" we'd find more refs. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: by the way as per User:Calathan comment on deprod (Removing prod - Not a valid reason for deletion. Older unreferenced BLPs are not deleted solely due to being unreferenced. If you searched for sources but couldn't find any, that would be a valid reason for deletion, but the prod didn't imply that.) no one should ever PROD a BLP which has sources in the interwiki article (in this case ja.wp) if they cannot read the interwiki article (in this case Japanese). There have been many discussions about this but I am concerned that the PROD guideline still doesn't make this clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the corresponding article in the Japanese Wikipedia. It didn't have any footnotes, just an external link, and it looked to me an IMDB-like site. That's PRODworthy anywhere. I'm happy to be proven wrong about the notability, but the PROD was to the best of my linguistic ability. --BDD (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid many are misusing WP:BLPPROD. As it states in the description, an article should only be tagged if it contains "no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography". Too many are mistakenly thinking the article has to have actual references or RS. But as long as it has an external link that confirms anything about the person, even their name, BLPPROD cannot be used. The link on the Japanese wikipedia article was to her official profile. While that might not be an independent RS, the BLPPROD directions clearly state that using the tag should not involve a judgement about the reliability of the external link. In the end, there is "different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, verses removal of the tag." That is, any source, RS or not, can prevent placement of the tag, but only an RS can enable removal of the tag. To quote: "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added. This compromise avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources for placement, and limits that issue to the far fewer instances, at the other end, where a source is actually added during the ten-day period." Michitaro (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: no worries, previous discussion has generally been related enthusiasts prodding for example a Soviet academic because "no sources in English" and suchlike. We have so much dubious content that does have English "sources" (cough) such as Felix Pfeifle - now that looks AfD material to me. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 13 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airachnid[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was made into a redirect after a PROD because of a lack of notability, but then recreated without any evidence of real-world significance. Until such evidence is forthcoming, this article should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 16 September 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 Ultra Series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Ultra[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the Ultra Series 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) 15:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultra Series. Ultraman is another possible target. This character does not seem to have independent notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Redirect to either Ultraman or Ultra Series. No notability outside of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the nomination gives no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect. merge or redirect If it is not significant enough for a separate article, it still should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 19 September 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 Tab stop. Merge can take place from the history — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic tabstops[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG – all sources are self-published and hence unreliable, only provide trivial coverage, or both. I'd have proposed a merge into Tab stop, but that article already mentions elastic tabstops, and I don't think the topic warrants more coverage than it already has there per UNDUE. —me_and 15:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to tabstop. The concept is mentioned there, but it's explained here. The concept has generated some buzz, [16] [17] [18] so a brief explanation at a related article is adequate. The article contains freely licensed images that show it clearly with few words, there's no need to lose those. Diego (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think Tabstop should have more coverage of this subject than it already has? I'd consider this a very small side-note to the wider topic of tabstops, and I think any more detailed coverage on that article would breach WP:UNDUE. —me_and 09:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why so? Tabstop is an article about all kind of tabstops, of which this implementation is a particular instance. The sources are certainly not enough for a stand-alone article, but article content is not subject to notability, and the idea has been implemented by several third parties (various libraries for popular editors exist).

Actually saying that "there exist such thing as elastic tabstops" and then not explaining what that thing is, is not giving proper weight either; it's loosy writing. Why mention it there if its not relevant, and why leave readers without knowing what such thing is? I'm not suggesting merging everything here; only a short definition and the free-licensed image, which also helps illustrate the main concept of a tabstop. (Also, the concept being described is not strictly a "point of view" that would be over-represented against opposite viewpoints and thus skew neutrality; we can use as many words as we need to properly explain what it is and why we have included it at the tab stop article).

A merge and redirect will allow using the definition available in this article with proper attribution, and will preserve the page history in case the concept gets traction and requires further expansion. It will also create a natural redirect for a likely search term. Diego (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly self-promotion for a personal project that hasn't seen advancement since 2006. Jonrock (talk) 03:55, 17 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Michael Castielle[edit]

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

Delete Not notable Phatwa (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and promotional 176.26.163.111 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. seems mostly like a promo article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure/comment/possible redirect and merge to Olinda Castielle - I'm really not sure. He's clearly done quite a bit of assorted stuff, but perhaps not enough for notability in any particular field. His wife also has an article. While I suspect her notability is also borderline, and her article also has similar problems, she does seem a touch more notable than her husband (particularly if it's true that her song was the "world's most popular mobile ringtone" in 2005... that's quite a claim) so a condensed bio on Patrick could be moved over there along with the redirect. Mabalu (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something made me glance at the nominator's edit history and it is slightly worrying. While the subject's notability is certainly dubious, I think a closer look at this nom in relation to the edit history (including deleted pages) of Phatwa might be necessary. The actual nomination is not much of a reason, and the ISP backing up the nom mere hours afterwards, while not implausible, does look a tiny bit fishy considering this. Mabalu (talk) 12:27, 16 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Zappala[edit]

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

This gentleman is, certainly in the current version of the article, borderline notable at best. Yes he has written some books and been a lecturer, but he fails to pass WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fiddle Faddle, I respect Wiki's policies and understand your concerns. I do feel that the author of a text used by thousands of law students, a professor at several major law schools, etc., is "notable enough," even without his work for Sicilian-American culture. I will look for articles in the Boston Globe, et al., which will corroborate his notoriety. Many thanks, LeonardoCiampa (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

replyThe issue is never what one feels to be the case, only what is documented as the case. If you (or others) can cite his notability (not notoriety!) in reliable sources I will be more than happy to withdraw this nomination. Every article has a bar above which it must pass to gain entry here. When and if this one does I will welcome it with open arms. Fiddle Faddle 14:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide independent evidence of notability (or notoriety - either would do!). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for, but did not find, substantive independent coverage in reliable sources for either his law teaching or his books. Unless I missed it somewhere, the "press page" at his website [19] doesn't seem to have any reviews from significant newspapers or similar coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Alfred is an important figure in the Italian-American (and Sicilan-American) community in the greater Boston area. See Bostoniano.info. "Alfred M. Zappala Presents Books on Sicily". Retrieved 17 September 2013.Johnjgillis (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Keep) because Alfred was a prominent background figure in fostering the development of the Massachusetts School of Law in Andover, and has remained a strong supporter ever since. The Massachusetts School of Law in Andover has provided a path to practicing law for many hard-working people of reasonable means. Massachusetts is one of the few states that lacked a public law school until 2011. See Staff REport. "Alumnus Judge Lakin to Speak at Commencement". Retrieved 30 March 2013.Johnjgillis (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I have indented your second keep !vote so it does not appear that you have expressed two separate opinions. I have edited the second to strike out your emboldened 'keep'. If you object to this please feel free to revert my edits. My comment is below

Comment The article does not reflect the importance you have stated here. If he was an important figure as you ay he was then the article absolutely must assert this and verify it. Attempting to assert it here is interesting, asserting it there is vital. However, in http://www.andovertownsman.com/education/x1307051763/Alumnus-now-judge-to-speak-at-Mass-School-of-Law-commencement Zappala gets only a passing mention. http://www.bostoniano.info/upcoming-events/social-events/alfred-m-zappala-presents-books-on-sicily-march-13 does somewhat better and mentions that he has taught many people and is considered to be an expert, but does not couch the expertness in terms that are not weasel words. It really is only a flannel quote for his talk on a couple of books to tell the audience that a fine man is speaking. Pretty much all flyers for talks puff the upcoming speaker. Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shangrila T-Shirt[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "Some notability is asserted, but there is no verification in reliable sources. Verification must be present or the article has no place here, and simply looks like an advert." Fiddle Faddle 10:40, 11 September 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 The Fairly OddParents (season 9). (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly OddPet[edit]

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

This episode does not establish its notably due to lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk) 08:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to The Fairly OddParents (season 9). Just because a sow with regularly 11-minute episodes has a full 22-minute episode is no reason to establish notability. No hits on Google News, nothing good on regular Google. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 9) Average episode of series only notable for introducing dog and airing before an awards show. Nate • (chatter) 00:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Travel Services[edit]

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

Prompted from London Easylink AfD. Long defunct non notable company with no chance of expansion. aycliffe^talk 07:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 01:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:CORP's key requirement of significant coverage in multiple sources of regional or national scope - relevant sources include [20], [21] and [22] and more offline (this being 2002 and before, many sources were still print-only at the time). 81.178.183.237 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Is a company that lasted a mere three years really notable? This is when I see AFDs on a company in which £50M has bene invested. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the sources are up to scratch then yes it is - other company articles being nominated wrongly isn't a basis for deleting this. But three years thing is wrong anyway since it refers only to London operations, and this source makes it clear that the company had been doing other work for 14 years before its collapse. 81.178.183.237 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although notable(ish) ...They're only known for the links above .... and that's it ....

So delete per nom non notable defunct company. -Davey2010T 16:10, 17 September 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 The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McVeigh (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter with no top tier fights. I merely want to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller at which has was a participant (although he lost by TKO in qualifying for moving into the house). I did redirect this article, but it was reverted and I received my usual cursing out by an IP user. He clearly doesn't meet any notability criteria for an article of his own. Papaursa (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Subject doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Even a redirect is generous given his brief stint on the show.Mdtemp (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller - Not enough for his own article, so a redirect is appropriate. Luchuslu (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Bisping vs. Team Miller — Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and doesn't seems to meet WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BjornSocialist Republic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Once deleted in 2007, re-created out of process. The article is supported by 2 (possibly 3) reliable sources but the coverage is the very definition of trivial. Kiruning (talk) 03:40, 11 September 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 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another stupid non-notable micronation. jni (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability, just another "hobby project" more similar to creating a small local club with a webpage than anything deserving of Wikipedia coverage. Have checked online coverage in Swedish, and the only thing that is 3rd party is a legal notice that Mr. Augustsson's request to get rid of his Swedish citizenship was refused. I do notice that the editing history of the article contains a couple of SPAs and the like, so we'll see if it affects this AfD. Tomas e (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are notable micronations and non-notable micronations. This one belongs to the latter group. Like Tomas e, I cannot find any significant coverage in Swedish. --bonadea contributions talk 13:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable pseudo-governmental entity. Carrite (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Swedish Wikipedia was spammed with lots of this "Bjorn" nonsense a couple of years ago (a Bjorn party, a Bjorn movement and so on) and it has all been duly deleted. It's obviously completely nonsense and the brainchild of a single individual. /FredrikT (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental diplomacy[edit]

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

neologism that was used in a couple of stories about the current US/Syria crisis. The second paragraph of the article is clearly the author's original thought and derisive commentary, and doesn't belong here. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEO, WP:OR. (what is this English you speak of?!) Ansh6 6 6 08:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – This appears to be an attempt to create a neologism rather than document the creation of one. The article claims this is a term coined by Politico, but the article from there doesn't seem to do that. After the headline, the article does not use the phrase, and only uses the word "accidental" once, in the opening sentence – "an act of apparently accidental U.S. diplomacy". The writer isn't committing to declaring it definitely accidental, let alone attempting to define a new term. This isn't just a neologism, it's a neologism that isn't created in the place the article says it is. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough substance provided to show this is a recognized, notable topic. If in the future there comes to be the article should be about the topic, not the neologism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just want to point out that in searching Category:Diplomacy for relevant articles where this content might belong, I didn't find an article about the historical role of diplomat errors. Such an article might be worth creating, although honestly I think Kerry's comments are too recent to fit into a theoretical mold just yet. groupuscule (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia follows trends in language, it does not create them. If a bunch of papers start using this term regularly we can revisit the issue, but for now this is not a term with the background to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 14 September 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) 06:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Johnson (English goalkeeping coach born 1985)[edit]

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

PROD rejected for no reason. Article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable athlete or coach. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; although he has coached in a professional league in the WP:FPL list, he has never managed or played for such a club, which is needed to satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a footballer, not notable as a coach, not notable at all. Giant Snowman 17:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He does not seem to have played or coached at a high enough level of the game to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, as the article does not meet WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidlelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:15, 16 September 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.