< 1 January	3 January >

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The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death (cigarette)[edit]

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

I cannot find enough significant sources to justify this product or its company as a stand alone article. — Keithbob • Talk • 23:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! It seems that now when I'm searching under Google books using both the company and product name simultaneously that lots of results are coming up and the product seems to be well know in marketing circles for its bizarre branding approach. So at this point I'd like to withdraw my AfD proposal. My apologies for the false filing. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kannibal Kidz[edit]

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

Non-notable, and apparently non-existing movie, fails WP:NOTFILM. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX. Lacks any sort of verifabilty. Cannot find any sort of evidence that a short film was ever shot in 2012 in the areas near the "plague wall" in Cabrieres d'Avignon. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Didn't find anything to verify the existence of this short film. Fails on WP:MOVIE. Hitro talk 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete via WP:G3. I can't really find anything to show that this person actually exists, at least a person that has done these accomplishments exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian johnson[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. I can't find any mention of him on the cast for the movie he supposedly was in. --Jakob (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on IMDB. Which means he obviously fails wp:NACTOR even if he was an extra. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2014 (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 Withdrawn by nom. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Control in the Third Reich (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep reviews and interviews from The washington times, The new republic (highly critical) and the Daily caller. Written by one of the most notable gun rights/law researchers. Also interviewed about the book by the NRA [1], and CBN (admittedly this last is not a super big network) [2] Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reviews by major sources satisfies WP:NBOOK. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Respectfully I added the book and I reviewed WP:NBOOK so I wouldn't waste anybody's time. Here is my analysis of WP:NBOOK and what I came up with under the policy:

1.Passes this Test - The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]

2.Does Not pass this Test -The book has won a major literary award.

3.Passes This Test (we use it here, it meets WP:RS, the author is a lawyer who has won before the supreme court) - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

4.May pass this test but I can't substantiate- The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]

5.May pass this test this is debatable, to some he is to others he is not - The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

Overall grade: Passes at least One Test (which is the standard)"

Under Other Tests

ISBN: Yes

Self Publication: No

Vanity Press: Maybe but this does not exclude it

Online Bookstore: Yes

Not Yet Published: Not Applicable this book is published

Academic and Technical: Potentially, it's based on first hand research and written by a lawyer who has won in front of the supreme court.

Based on this detailed analysis of WP:NBOOK, it it passes the test for inclusion can Darkness Shines provide a particular failure why he would nominate the work excluded or if I'm missing something, I wouldn't mind learning. Otherwise would the editor please remove his nomination for removal?-Justanonymous (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be citing this book as a reliable source. Clearly ideological and unreliable. — goethean 22:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP:RS explicitly says that reliable sources are not required to be neutral or objective. Justanonymous as originally written it was not obvious that it did pass WP:NBOOK as there were not sufficient sources, but the nom probably should have done a bit more WP:BEFORE Gaijin42 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, it does not matter that the author won a court case. I nominated it as it had no sources at the time I redirected, but looking at he sources does not change ny mind. American Thinker? Is that even RS? And it has a few lines in a long screed on gun control, I would not call that a review. Will look at the others soon. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews by The Washington Times, New Republic, and The Daily Caller are certainly reviews in RS. The book meets the first inclusion criteria under WP:NBOOK. I found this book on NPP, and considered nominating it for deletion, but instead moved it and created a dab page so that the creator and others would have a chance to improve it. The current sources show that it meets our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for... Clearly passes wp:BOOK with the book reviews listed. Strong Keep with a possible wp:SNOW Neonchameleon (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 20:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population cycle civilization model[edit]

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

Non-notable concept based on a self-published book Adams, Russell J., A Letter to Dear Children: On Our Overpopulation-Violence Connection (CreateSpace) being promoted by this editor and BetterWorld4 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The general concept is notable, and important. But this article is original research. Note that Darwin is cited, but he was talking about general biological principles not the rise and fall of human civilizations. Borock (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am sure there are already better articles that talk about the problem of overpopulation. Borock (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2014 (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 Project Polaroid. And delete. Sandstein 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOMC3[edit]

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

Notability issues were raised in 2009 but not followed upon. Not notable from what I can see. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold Recordings appear not to be notable as far as I can tell. Yes, that's wp:BAND. Still, Delete unless new evidence comes to light. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Project Polaroid, which seems to be the only project that has led to any coverage. --Michig (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2014 (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 Uruguay. And delete. Sandstein 20:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayan[edit]

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

Since there is no language called "Uruguayan", there is nothing to disambiguate; all topics on the page are partial title matches referring to the clear primary topic of the title, Uruguay. This disambiguation page, which contains no actual ambiguous topics, should be deleted in favor of a redirect that will take readers to the one topic that actually corresponds to the title. bd2412 T 21:06, 2 January 2014 (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/2014 January 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Borock (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that's not a disambiguation page whatever it claims. Its only purpose would be to cause confusion. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uruguay. I did wonder whether the sheep breed justified a dab page, but on googling it doesn't seem to be a commonly-used term for the breed. Nothing here justifies the dab page. PamD 13:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the sheep were called that, the dab would still need to be moved, at least, in favor of the clear primary topic of the term. I actually wouldn't be terribly opposed to that as a solution, either. bd2412 T 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uruguay which should answer questions about language, nationality, etc. Looking at other pages, Chilean and Bolivian are disambiguation pages similar to Uruguayan, so people may want to AfD or redirect them. Venezuelan and Peruvian already redirect to the country. Brazilian and Spanish are also disambiguation pages, but in those cases you have a beauty term, a song, a colloquial term for confectionery, etc, which provide some justification for the usefulness of a disambiguation page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally agree as to all adjectival forms; Spanish is also the name of a language, and the general practice has been to disambiguate where this is the case. bd2412 T 14:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - useful or not, I don't see what is the harm for it to exist as a dab page. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then move it to Uruguayan (disambiguation). As it stands, it generates disambiguation links to be fixed, which always refer to things relating to the country, Uruguay. bd2412 T 22:35, 8 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 20:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Female Struggle[edit]

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

Obviously non-notable book, published last month, no sources. Previous versions twice speedied as spam, but books can't be speedied under A7. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable book by a non-notable author. I thought the PROD process would be sufficient, but we can do it this way too. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than one insanely brief article (which I think may be a press release or based on one), there's just nothing out there to show that this book is ultimately notable and passes our guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada.com article that you added to our article as a reference appears to me to be a description of a documentary film called "The World Before Her". It is not clear to me that the headline "Doc focuses on female struggle" is actually a reference to this book or that the Prachi Trivedi mentioned in the Canada.com article has anything to do with Arun Trivedi. James500 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the reference is not about this book. I've removed the source. -- Whpq (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources that indicate notability. James500 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mimoza Duot[edit]

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

Article fails both general and specific notability guidelines. Duot is a third-place finisher on a TV competition; she released two singles, but neither of them charted. The only source in the article is a single newspaper story. Two years is plenty of time for the article to have improved. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a 2012 article here from Winnepeg Free Press that has lots of coverage, but it's pretty quotation-heavy and light on more substantive, independent coverage. I'm also fairly certain both this publication and the Pilipino-Express are somewhat local in its coverage as well. The coverage, in short, does not quite meet the WP:GNG threshold. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the WP:NMUSIC criteria, nor the quality and volume of reliable sourcing available about her are actually there yet. I'm sure if she keeps it up she'll qualify for an article soon enough, but that day hasn't quite arrived yet. Delete (without prejudice against future recreation if and when her notability and sourceability can be beefed up.) Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Schmitt[edit]

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

Lots of work listed, none of which seems notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's one of those cases where a whole list of non-notable references makes a convincing case for deletion (as does Google) Neonchameleon (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the prose appears to have been lifted from here although there are links to Wikipedia there. It doesn't have the tone of something written for Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beanstalkd[edit]

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

For all I know, this might possibly be notable , but the article doesn;t show it DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS references; no references, at all, for that matter DocumentError (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some sourcing, however this article would need an overhaul, for now I won't vote, but if the article improves it sourcing and format, my vote is keep, otherwise, its current status is unbearable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:11, 26 December 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, Courcelles 20:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS refs - refs provided are blogs and a developer's site. A search reveals more blogs, how-to pages, and developer's sites, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no references the way Eduemoni suggested. However, if that editor does have references that help confirm notability, they should be provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Found quite a few mentions in reliable sources (books, academic journals, theses & other academic papers, etc.), however they are generally brief, one-sentence sorts of mentions. Like "we used beanstalkd," or "there are lots of queueing systems, inclyding x, y, z, and beanstalkd." I may have overlooked some good reliable sources that cover beanstalkd in depth, and if so please cite them, but my current opinion is that even though the article can be improved a bit with reliable sources, the topic still won't meet WP:N notability. ––Agyle (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UnThreat[edit]

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

The 2 or 3 minor reviews here probably do not show notability . Accepted from afc despite that DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ref provided are download sites with a sentence or two at most describing the software and do not establish notability. A search turned up additional download sites, the toms guide link being the most detailed, and forum posts, but not enough significant RS coverage to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 16:52, 26 December 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, Courcelles 20:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable and significant coverage does not exist. - tucoxn\^talk 23:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopefully a case of WP:TOOSOON. I find blogs and reviews on shareware sites, but nothing from RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roach (rapper)[edit]

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

Other than the claim that one of his videos received a million views on YouTube, there really wasn't any other claim of notability here. The YouTube view claim, if true, still doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NMUSIC on its own. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most widely accepted methods of demonstrating notability is via significant coverage in reliable sources, and it would really help to search for such coverage before bringing articles to AfD. The subject here has received coverage from Pitchfork Media (3 album reviews), MTV (multiple articles), VICE, XXL, SPIN, Prefix, HipHopDX, FACT magazine, and others. Easily passess WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These independent label musicians often get a very short spurt of coverage from multiple sources — and then die away as far as mainstream coverage is concerned. WP:15M applies, I believe. --Nlu (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. On further thought, I think a problem with the "keep" argument that Michig is making is this: these lesser-known, independent-label musicians are effectively analogous to minor league athletes, who actually likely have hundreds more mainstream references in newspapers, TV, radio, &c. references, not only locally, but in national sources. Yet, a consensus judgment call has been made that not only are they not notable just based on those references, but they are presumptively not notable unless they make it to the majors, except in the cases of major coverage despite the not making it to the majors. WP:NMUSIC's "per se notable" criteria effectively serves as a "make it to the majors" analog, and while I consider them somewhat over inclusive, I'm not going to quibble with the consensus there. Yet when someone/some group doesn't make it on those criteria, I question how, in particular when the person/group does not draw coverage outside music publications, whether WP:GNG can be at all invoked. I'd consider them presumptively non-notable unless they make it to one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. --Nlu (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These boilerplate responses suggest that as little effort has gone into them as the original nominations. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This response shows that you are not attempting to respond to the logic at all. Again, you search for the person, all you see are trade links, not general coverage. Minor leaguer, if that. If you think that WP:NMUSIC is underinclusive, open a discussion to change those guidelines. Someone who is well-versed in the music scene, as apparently you have, may overthink a musician's importance, — just as a baseball enthusiast will overthink a minor leaguer's importance. Overall, that minor leaguer is still not notable until/unless he makes it to the majors (in general; sometimes the minor leaguer will make GNG on other grounds); same for musicians. If they haven't made it to the bigs, they're not notable. --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine and news coverage is not 'trade links'. If you actually understood the notability guidelines you'd know that WP:NMUSIC is satisfied here. And none of these discussions have anything to do with baseball so I suggest giving up on that line of argument. --Michig (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage may be sufficient unless they are trivial (under the exception to 1), and that's still how I am seeing it. You may not like the minor leaguer analogy, but that's what I think is an apt analogy. You don't have to agree with it. You don't get to tell others what to argue and what not to argue. --Nlu (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't (and shouldn't) dismiss sports-centric sources such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated when establishing the notability of athletes. Similarly, it's perfectly reasonable for the notability of musicians to be established from coverage in music sources, so long as the sources in question are considered reliable and independent of the subject. In this case, Pitchfork (x3) and MTV (x2) (along with the other sources above) clearly meet the WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO#1 standard. Gong show 21:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a ~210-word review in The New York Times, for what it's worth. Gong show 02:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC through independent coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism ^hey! 11:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Clasen[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. He doesn't have a German-language article. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence that this sideman has WP:MUSICBIO notability. The article text that "his biggest musical achievement is being thrown out of his local youth jazz orchestra" would be an assertion of non-notability were it not intended whimsically. Arguably WP:MUSICBIO could suggest a redirect to James Last Orchestra but the subject doesn't appear sufficiently prominent in that respect. AllyD (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orchestral musician, article fails WP:MUSICBIO. No sources for notability on his own found. --Ben Ben (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2014 (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. No compelling, policy-backed arguments have been made for the inclusion of this article. Therefore, this article's subject is found to not have the required notability at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin E. Osgood Award[edit]

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

Regional award, not of encyclopedic significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree this award is relevant for Wiki documentation. Wilkistudent ( talk ) 02:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This award is relevant for Wikipedia documentation. Its a prestigious award worthy of encyclopedic significance. AFMRwesternsection ( talk ) 09:31, 6 January 2014 (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 December 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ross HillTalk to me! 03:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non periodical, non significant reward or event fails WP:NEVENTS and WP:GNG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 December 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, Courcelles 19:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree this award is relevant for Wiki documentation. Wilkistudent ( talk ) 02:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This award is relevant for Wikipedia documentation. Its a prestigious award worthy of encyclopedic significance. AFMRwesternsection ( talk ) 09:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SolarWolf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Solarwolf

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

Fails WP:N. Books search shows only Wikipedia-sellers and a passing mention in a Python programming book (about a game that uses Pygame). I couldn't find any third-party reliable sources on a web search either. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, can't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability or to sustain its verifiability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 26 December 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, Courcelles 19:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Col Meredith[edit]

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

Quite a bit of information here — but nothing that shows that this person is notable as a musician or as a magazine editor, as far as I can tell. The band that he made the most releases with shares the name with what I'd consider a non-notable band from Texas — which dominates a Web search for that name! I just don't see it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The trouble with finding coverage for many bands from this period is the magazines of the time are not available online, but Bourbon Street were a non-charting act that mainly received minor coverage in local papers. I was unable to find decent coverage for journalism claim.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:41, 27 December 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, Courcelles 19:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chattanooga Steam[edit]

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

Not notable. Semi-pro team with no sources to help it meet guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We had a big discussion a few years back about semi-pro football here. It may be helpful. After that, I do not see the group passing WP:GNG and most of the sources on the article are either dead, wordpress blogs, or not third party. Only one appears to be a WP:RS, and it appears to be simply a local news item.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:54, 28 December 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, Courcelles 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the original prodder. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG; also per Paulmcdonald Go Phightins! 00:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Chelesnik[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but passing references in semi-reliable sources and occasional press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Levdr1lp / talk 08:37, 3 January 2014 (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 Padonkaffsky jargon. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Padonki[edit]

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

There is no sourced material in this article which does not appear in Padonkaffsky jargon. For a very simple reason, that the only manifestation of this "subculture" is the jargon. Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree that there is no verifiable content beyond jargon. (Even some footnoted is dubious as well). However the term itself is known. - Altenmann >t 05:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is determined that there's no independent notability, then redirect. Because the term looks like a much better search term than "Padonkaffsky jargon". --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object moving Padonkaffsky jargon to Padonki.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a good idea, but I'm not 100% sure. I've searched Google Books, and the term "Padonkaffsky jargon" has been used 1 time too. (There are several hits, but all except one are print versions of Wikipedia articles.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domain dominance[edit]

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

The term appears to be a neologism that is not covered in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 15:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete - the term exists and has been used, but not finding significant coverage of it in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:51, 27 December 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, Courcelles 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Orsatti[edit]

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

Notability issues were raised in 2011, but never followed up on. Does not appear notable to me in either film-production or athletic aspect. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a replacement for MySpace. (Anyone still use that?)--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my own comments I think I may have looked at the wrong article when I wrote the comment above. I will recuse myself from this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like he should pass GNG, especially if the "USC quarterback" claim is true, but I don't have the time to research 1920s USC articles. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if true, that's not sufficient to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. It didn't say that he was the starting quarterback, and even if he was, I am still not sure that that would be sufficient. --Nlu (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Morley Drury, i.e. The Noblest Trojan of Them All was the Trojan QB from 1925-1927 and later a College Football Hall of Fame inductee, I doubt Orsatti saw much field time. Later career as a talent and agent and such earned him some hits on his obituary, but there doesn't appear to be any contemporary sources that fund him to be a notable individual at the time. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) No sources at the article. Based on a Google search, the only thing notable about him seems to be that Babe Ruth bat he won in a hitting contest as a teenager; the bat appears to be far more notable than he is.[3] In his obituary, he is credited with bringing Sonja Henie to Hollywood; not enough. He produced a few movies; not enough. Basically fails WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some sources after giving it a look see. He represented some of the biggest stars in Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s and received a good deal of coverage. He also produced 14 feature films and at least one television series, and his marriages to/divorces from some three stars also drew considerable press attention. Finally, his death in 1984 was covered by the AP and printed in newspapers across the country. This level of coverage in mainstream media outlets spanning 50 year more than satisfied WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A premiere hollywood agent of his era[4], which is why he merited an AP obituary that was widely published at his death, among the other sourcing found by Cbl62 as well. The Babe Ruth bat thing is a fun fact, but that's not the source of notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like 3 name-drops (one of which is in the appendix, the other describes him as "the shady guy who married...") in a book about the Mafia. For a book to say "so-and-so was a premier agent" and then walk away from that with no depth or qualifying text to support the how's and the why's of the supposed "premier" status is a bit suspect when it comes to establishing notability. I've never been convinced about the significance of obituaries either. Pretty standard fare for a person who was married to a few socialites and such in his day. So all in all ,the recent additions do not alter my input above. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, fundamentally your threshold for notability is higher than mine, we know that from years of AfDs together, but that one cite was just illustrative.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course different people have different "thresholds" for notability. Please refrain from such personal comments. They have no bearing on the issue at hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not unrelated, its the reality of cases near the margins. Both Tarc and I as paragons of civility, you have nothing to fear.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cbl62. Clearly notable looking in google books... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sources now found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the considerable improvement to the article and sourcing by Cbl62. Good work. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2014 (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. No evidence has been presented to show that this BLP meets our notability standards. Therefore, the concerns regarding this article's inclusion are found valid. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Leuschke[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is a little coverage around him in relation to the Leaky homes crisis but nothing to build a BLP on. Being on the Hobson Community Board is not enough for WP:NPOL. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Making the news for commenting on a few leaky buildings and being friends with John Key and Rod Petrecivic is no claim to notability. Fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as norability seems to be drawn from association rather than self NealeFamily (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-known and controversial architect in Auckland. His involvement in local politics and other connections are related to his architectural practice. The article needs more work but he is certainly notable.Rick570 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:33, 26 December 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, Courcelles 19:04, 2 January 2014 (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. No compelling, policy-backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've removed loads of unsourced information and promotional cruft from the article. Now all that's left is a stub. To write a policy-compliant article about the company, we would need to find sufficient SIGCOV by independent RSes which discusses Redwood. But I suspect that such coverage may not exist.

No matter how big or small a company is, and no matter how long it's existed, and no matter where it operates, we need such coverage. If such coverage does not exist, we cannot write an article about them, and so must delete our pitiful stub.

And so, unless you know of SIGCOV by independent RSes, please vote to "Delete".

Please note:

The company description you can view in the Bloomberg BusinessWeek Company Insight Center directory of corporations is not independent. User:Michig adds that company partners include SAP AG and Deloitte. If those companies write anything about Redwood, please assume that their words, too, are not independent.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might help to look for sources in Dutch for this because a ~200 person software company will probably get national press coverage in a small country like the Netherlands. That's assuming that what they do isn't just rent-a-coder for the SAP/Deloitte, which might well be the case... Also assuming they still have some engineering in the Nethernalds, because I know of some other "Dutch" companies, for which you'd be looking in the wrong country for press coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:33, 26 December 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, Courcelles 19:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've asked watchers of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion and the WikiProject Business talk page to come here and contribute. If you insist, we can allow a bit of time for them to do so. But, in truth, nobody has ever proven that multiple suitable sources exist. So, I think, let's allow this article to be deleted for now. If someone finds multiple suitable sources (which include SIGCOV) later, they need merely contact the closing admin. He or she can then undelete it immediately. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Lozo[edit]

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

Self-bio written to promote a non-notable man. damiens.rf 18:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources and nothing supports any claims of notability or championships.Jakejr (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jakejr. 23 editor (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2014 (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. No arguments have been made for this article's inclusion. COI concerns are also likely valid. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dale D'Amore[edit]

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

Appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I could not find multiple reliable sources on him. The one reference from the Windsor Star blog to being inducted into a hall of fame appears to be more of a community service award for musicians. The article itself notes that some of the people enrolled in the hall of fame are virtually unknowns, and thus it doesn't go far in establishing notability. This also seems to be an autobiographical article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It bears noting here that the article's creator is User:Ddamore1, raising the strong likelihood of WP:COI. Otherwise, if you've got to rely on Ancestry.com (a site which violates Wikipedia's proscription against citing user-edited content sites as references) for birth information, then chances are you don't even pass WP:GNG to begin with — and if the best you can actually do for a substantive notability claim is being inducted into a local music "hall of fame", then you haven't really gained enough to actually pass WP:NMUSIC either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grimes Poznikov[edit]

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

Funny/sad story about street performer, but I just don't see how this is notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You first juggle the categories around for the article and then make a call for deletion; I don't understand. The stub article is completely referenced except for one sentence. Poznikov was part of the seventies street scene of San Francisco. Just because he did not perform on a stage or in the movies does not necessarily mean he wasn't notable. I personally do not understand your addition of the Category of "Criminals from Kansas". All of the people in that category were felons, the crimes Poznikov was accused of were misdemeanors, something that is not necessarily considered criminal in the United States. There is plenty of room for stub articles on Wikipedia and Wikipedia isn't going to "run out of paper" anytime soon. It gives someone the opportunity later to fill in the article and bring it up to a better class of article. Without stub articles, Wikipedia will not be complete and will not have an opportunity to grow. If the article isn't notable then why did you even bother to change the categories? Cuprum17 (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to assume that there is a chance that it would survive a deletion request. If it was speedyable, I would have speedy-deleted it. It is because it was not that I submitted it for discussion. But, in any case, you are misunderstanding the law. Misdemeanors are crimes, and in any case, sale of marijuana is a felony in California. --Nlu (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple news articles about him from different sources, and plenty in GBooks, one book describing him as an "internationally hailed" musician, with The U-T San Francisco describing him as "one of the city's most popular tourist attractions". Easily passes WP:GNG and clearly shouldn't be deleted. --Michig (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And if that kind of an exaggerated superlative doesn't cause you to ponder about the credibility of the source... --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2014 (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. No compelling, policy-backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B3 ltd[edit]

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

The company is not notable in any way. I took an interest in this article and searched for any sources that mention this company and could not find any. The article violates WP:Notpromotion and the company is not notable. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 18:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company updated its website and the information that I have added on the Wikipedia website was on the old website. The information added on this website will for sure be added on the new website they have created> Give it some time until they put back the information about the company. This company hosts and has created many of the leading websites in Cyprus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kachrico (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2014‎

It does not matter how much information is on the company web site. It is still a primary source i.e. written by the subject of the nominated article. I searched for ANYONE on the Internet other than the company that even mentioned it in passing, and could find none. Please re-read the notability guidelines for more information. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 18:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also should have included a recommendation that the author read this: WP:Third-party sources. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 18:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found that this company (under current or earlier names) meet the notability guidelines. (The article just describes what the firm does, with no assertion of notability so this could possibly be a CSD A7.) AllyD (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thao Nguyen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted back in 2006. There have been an additional album with Mirah since then (Thao + Mirah). Still doesn't seem sufficiently notable to me. (I was tempted to also include Mirah and Thao + Mirah in this deletion nomination, but Mirah appears to marginally sufficiently notable to me, although I'd like folks here to also discuss those two articles slightly; I will nominate them separately (or someone else can nominate them) if the general opinion is that Mirah is also not sufficiently notable.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Try clicking on the Google search link above (to the right of 'Find sources') and in the first few pages you should find coverage from Mother Jones ([5]), Allmusic (see also multiple reviews there and evidence of plenty of releases on very significant labels), Pitchfork Media (multiple), The New Yorker, Interview, SF Weekly, The Washington Post. Maybe brushing up on notability guidelines and WP:BEFORE would be advisable. --Michig (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These independent label musicians often get a very short spurt of coverage from multiple sources — and then die away as far as mainstream coverage is concerned. WP:15M applies, I believe. --Nlu (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. On further thought, I think a problem with the "keep" argument that Michig is making is this: these lesser-known, independent-label musicians are effectively analogous to minor league athletes, who actually likely have hundreds more mainstream references in newspapers, TV, radio, &c. references, not only locally, but in national sources. Yet, a consensus judgment call has been made that not only are they not notable just based on those references, but they are presumptively not notable unless they make it to the majors, except in the cases of major coverage despite the not making it to the majors. WP:NMUSIC's "per se notable" criteria effectively serves as a "make it to the majors" analog, and while I consider them somewhat over inclusive, I'm not going to quibble with the consensus there. Yet when someone/some group doesn't make it on those criteria, I question how, in particular when the person/group does not draw coverage outside music publications, whether WP:GNG can be at all invoked. I'd consider them presumptively non-notable unless they make it to one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. --Nlu (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, click on the search link. These boilerplate responses suggest as little thought has gone into them as the original nominations. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And I did. And by the time you get to the third screen of search results, the results are beginning to be about other Thao Nguyens. That doesn't speak well for her notability. (Not to mention that the first- and second-screen search results are the exact type of coverage I was referring to; local or so trade-specific that really, I was thinking, "you think that this artist is somehow justifiably satisfying GNG"? This is where your knowledge in the music scene may be blinding you to the fact that the person is really utterly non-notable generally. --Nlu (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A musician does not have to be a mainstream Top 40 pop star to count as notable for our purposes, nor does she have to be the only person who comes up in a Google search on her name. Among those "first three pages" sources that you want to dismiss as "local or trade-specific", I see NPR, The New Yorker, Interview and Mother Jones — solid sources all — and if I keep going past page three I also hit The Washington Post, Spin, Rolling Stone, Paste, Magnet, Exclaim!, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and USA Today. She absolutely does meet our inclusion rules; the only real question here is whether we need a separate article about her or can make do with a redirect to her band. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, this article's lack of really substantive detail doesn't really convince me that we actually need a separate article about her, when we could just as easily merge it into Thao & The Get Down Stay Down. (It was, in fact, a redirect from 2008 until just over a month ago, when an IP number created a new standalone article, for reasons I can't really seem to grok given that there isn't that much content here, and the band's article, while more detailed than this, still isn't exactly bursting at the seams with content either.) That said, Nlu genuinely does seem to be arguing from a position of "indie musicians are automatically non-notable because they're indie" — if that's what they intended, then they need to understand that it's absolutely not the case, and if it isn't what they intended then they need to phrase themselves a bit more carefully. But what it comes down to, ultimately, is this: certainly she's notable enough to warrant coverage in Wikipedia, but the article as written is not detailed or substantial enough that it needs to stand alone as a separate topic from her band. Redirect to Thao & The Get Down Stay Down. See below. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the group and the individual easily pass WP:GNG, but merging to the article on the band is a possibility; The band article already contains a fair amount of detail on Nguyen herself. Both articles need work - I'll dig further into the sources and see what can be done with the two articles, and if after that it looks like covering the group and the individual in a single article looks best then fair enough. --Michig (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Michig has improved the article, such that it is now significantly more detailed and better-sourced than it was at the time I posted my original comment. Accordingly, I am striking my original conclusion and am now down with the keep. Nice job. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've done a lot of work on the article. I still have 50+ usable sources to work through which will allow expansion of this article, the band article, and articles on the albums. It's going to take some time to go through all of those, so regarding whether to merge or keep separate articles, it would be better to make this judgment after this has been completed. I will likely turn up additional sources if/when my HighBeam account is renewed and when the Google News Archive is back up. --Michig (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Lots of solid sources evidencing notability. At this point, I think this and the band article have sufficient material to warrant separate articles, but, given the overlap, a careful merger of the band article into this one could also work. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (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. No compelling, policy-backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. Therefore, this article's subject is currently found to not pass our notability requirements. If an editor would like the article userfied, they may leave a note on my talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Uni Lions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AFD was closed too soon so following a snowy Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January 2 I am relisting this for a longer discussion. As I closed the DRV this listing is a formality so I am neutral Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There seems to be only one media article about this topic. Also, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 17:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete previous AFD didn't come up with significan't coverage in reliable sources or any notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ changed/see comments below no real supply of reliable sources (I do believe the previous AFD closed too soon to establish consensus, but it looks like we're there now--but we can let it ride the whole term).--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to see if there's more evidence, but currently leaning toward weak delete or maybe merge/redirect to Sydney Uni Sport and Fitness. Mindful of our desire to avoid systemic geographic bias, I am glad this has been relisted and given a second, longer chance. But the case for retention isn't strong. I look at this article (and at the similar ones about other Australian university gridiron teams that have been deleted recently) and consider that if this were about a relatively minor sport at a major American university, it would still be likely to get its own page, or at least a substantial section in a more general article about the school's athletic program. However, based on the fact that so far very little [6] has been produced in the nature of directly relevant newspaper articles or other sources that are clearly both reliable and independent, it seems reasonable to presume that (i) college sports in Australia can't be presumed to get the same level of coverage that they do in the U.S., and (ii) gridiron football is at best a minor sport in the Australian university world. There is a brief mention of this team at Sydney Uni Sport and Fitness; to keep a separate article, we need to see more evidence of actual coverage in reliable independent sources. I've dug and found only the one article linked above. If someone else can produce more, that would be the best argument for keeping this separate article around. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. Low level sports club, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There is some coverage in local media but this amounts to routine coverage (mostly match reports). The level of coverage is such that the article at present is primarily based on primary sources. I note that there is not an article on the league in which it competes so would suggest merging salvageable content to the Sydney Uni Sport and Fitness and/or Gridiron NSW pages. Hack (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain or Merge. Agreed, the club fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG (although I do have another external article [7]) and, as mentioned, this is due to American Football being a minor sport in Australia. With that said, this club boasts arguably the best record in arguably the premier competition in a nation that had record participation in this year's college football season [8] and saw one of its own, Jesse Williams (American football), drafted by the Seattle Seahawks after starting on the Alabama defensive line in their national championship seasons. Creditable media coverage of the game, and its more prolific teams and players, will increase as more and more Australians follow this path. As cited above, a minor sport in the US college system (say, rugby) does have some cases where teams have their own article, but most are outlined under the respective college/university. There is no equivalent to the NCAA in Australia; all college/university teams are entered into regional/state/national club competitions, and all can draw on players from outside the university. Thus a merge with Sydney Uni Sport and Fitness article may not be the wisest course (certainly since SUSF's article does not embellish on any constituent clubs, it simply links to those that have their own article) and instead merging the article with Gridiron NSW may be the best course of action, if the case for retention has not been made. --Aussiegriff 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after due consideration. Amateur team in a non-notable league. None of the sources as far as I can see are both independent and more than rote recitation of statistics, so the club fails WP:ORG or WP:GNG, depending on your preferred flavour. Open to changing my mind if substantial and independent coverage can be demonstrated as promised by the user who took this to DRV in the first place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Notability is not temporary. If no better sources are found (and we've informed the person complaining that he needs a couple of in depth newspaper reports outside the university press I think) then at the moment it's ~~Delete~~ Keep - but tentatively because I don't find the idea that the club has been notable in the past for being an early American Football club in Australia. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can the people above who have commented on this article please look at the updated article. The article now makes plain that the team has been recorded in two separate editions of an independent digest of record for college football as having the best all-time win-loss-draw record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.182.185 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Okay maybe we have notability now... but seriously, comparing the program to the Chicago Bears? Changes in the article such as that one have, in my opinion, done more harm than good. Get it out of mainspace pronto and if the enthusiastic editors want to work on it in their workspace that's fine by me. When it's ready to go, we can move it in when consensus supports it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two separate editions of the same source is one source. And how much of a write-up did it get? Two lines saying so isn't enough - half a side going into a little depth about the team is (genuine question here as I don't know the answer). But still, that's most of the way there and I've changed from delete to keep (marked above) and am fairly confident that there will be another independent source or two found. (It doesn't matter when from - as I said above notability is not temporary) Neonchameleon (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmcdonald, thanks for your comments. The lifetime win/loss record of the team is being compared with the best lifetime records at the other levels of the same sport - professional, college and high school. These serve as a reference to demonstrate that the lifetime record of the team is, indeed, notable. The point cannot be made without comparison. There is no suggestion that the team is a better football team than the Chicago Bears or any of the other teams mentioned, just that its lifetime record in its competition is better than the best lifetime records in those other competitions. We are happy to accept that further work can be done on the article. Indeed, further mainstream references are being retrieved from our archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.182.185 (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neonchameleon, some further independent sources have been added to the references to the article since your last comment. We are locating further sources in our archives.

Comment - 211.26.182.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), it looks like there might be ample consensus to userify this article so it can be improved. As mentioned in this article's deletion review, a user account is necessary to do this. You (or someone else working on improving this article) will need to create a wikipedia account to accomplish this. I'm leaning toward userify if this happens. - tucoxn\^talk 23:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although they may support facts in the article, the recent addition (here and here) of references for the Sydney Alumni Magazine does not contribute to the topic's notability (which is what's being discussed here). Please see Wikipedia:Third-party sources for more information. - tucoxn\^talk 02:47, 9 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entry (economics)[edit]

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

Two sentence article. (Second sentence is OR.) No refs since creation in 2004. No refs since tagged no ref in 2009. Orphan (2-3 links). Vague term to begin with. Title is not WP:PRECISE. Perhaps https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entry can be expanded to define. – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by "not a dictionary." The article doesn't tell us anything about entry, just what the word means in this context and even that's a little vague. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete We do not need a one sentence article for an obvious-from-context definition. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zanané Rajsingh[edit]

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

Non-notable film director. No indications of notability for this Indian film director. Some minor film festival notices, but not sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. Most citations are to youtube or facebook posts. Article appears to be entirely promotional, created by the subject himself and edited by a COI user representing a film that Rajsingh has directed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there is a ton of sources in one of the Indian dialects, there just isn't any notability for him. We have two articles about a festival he helped put together, which helps, but there's just a huge lack of coverage out there. This is somewhat telling, as entertainment people usually get quite a bit of coverage in India. If someone can find coverage in foreign language sources I'm willing to change my opinion, but offhand this just doesn't seem to be a person who has received enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. The film festival might pass in a year or two if it gains more coverage, but all we have are the two sources for the first event in 2013. That's not enough to warrant a page for that. I'd nominate this for a speedy under promotional issues, but I do want to give this a little bit of a chance to get some people fluent in the dialects of India to look for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Long[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references of note. Gm545 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable boxer. Fails WP:NBOX. Article says career high point was a first round KO by Mike Tyson--NOT NOTABLE!Jakejr (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2014 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sedreck Fields[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because both these boxers are remarkable only for their loosing record and who they fought against. They have no coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Notable losers are still notable. Fields had a noteworthy upset win over Shannon Briggs, while Wofford's astonishing 17-102-2 record nevertheless earned him notice for his durability. I added a few sources. Also, I question the utility of bundling nominations of fighters who have little in common; since some AfD regulars might notice only the name in the heading of a nomination, in future I'd suggest fighters like these be nominated separately.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting notable fighters does not make one notable--see WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Besides both of the them having terrible records, they fail to meet WP:NBOX and the lack of significant coverage means they also don't meet WP:GNG. As I said above, notability is not inherited through having lost to some fighters who are notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither fighter meets WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Jakejr (talk) 18:11, 29 December 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, Sandstein 14:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither have any kind of notability based on reliable sources. Just a few passing mentions. Gm545 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neither meets the general notability standard or the one for boxing.Mdtemp (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2014 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyofShalott (talk • contribs)

Bostonnais[edit]

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

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

It's unfortunate that the editor didn't read WP:DISAMBIG before creating this disambiguation page, because it totally fails the disambiguation purpose. In the long list, there are only 2 entries with an article, and moreover, they have unique names not requiring disambiguation. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to La Bostonnais, Quebec, with a hatnote from there to Bostonnais River. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation article "Bostonnais" (this French word means "Bostonians" in English) was created by myself with the purpose to help Wikipedia users to navigate more easily in this encyclopedia. At least 23 toponyms integrating "Bostonnais" are known in the province of Québec (most of them in Upper-Mauricie area). Actually, "Bostonnais" toponyms are confusing for reasearchers and readers. Four WP articles were created in English about toponyms with "Bostonnais", and more new articles are expected to be publish on WP.

The idea of adding a simple footnote (in order to resume both Bostonnais rivers and "Grand lake Bostonnais" article) in the article "La Bostonians" (municipality) is not satisfactory and discriminatory. Each Bostonnais toponyms deserves its own article and its own reference in the article "Bostonnais" (disambiguation).

Is Wikipedia a universal encyclopedia? If so, this debate for deleting the article "Bostonnais" (disambiguation) is unappropriate. Articles in reference in the article "Bostonnais" are a work in progress. WP readers merit access to this article "Bostonnais" (disambiguation) in English on Wikipedia. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veillg1 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, the talk page of the AFD discussion is not the place to post comments; you should do so either on the talk page of the article or in the AFD discussion (I've moved it to the proper place for you). And please read WP:DAB; Wikipedia does not create disambiguation pages to comprehensively list every single article that happens to have a particular word in its title, but only where two or more articles are potentially in competition for the same title. That is, a disambiguation page should only be created in this instance if one or more of the topics in the list could actually be titled "Bostonnais" — which exactly none of them could, per our naming conventions for geographic topics. Rather, they are all titles which merely contain the word Bostonnais within a longer proper name — which, again, is not the purpose of a dab page. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've also added Wayagamac, another page created by the same user for the same incorrect purpose, to this nomination. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches. I'm not convinced that any of these are valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wayagamac - delete/redirect to Lake Lake is a partial match, but is the nearest to a valid entry. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - Thank you for your feedback. I understand that it is normal to have rules on WP and enforcement. It is also important to be open minded in the interpretation of these rules. The article WP:DAB indicates that "there are no absolute rules for determining a primary topic". This WP article refers also to "common sense" and the importance "to spare people of extra navigation steps".

Browsing on WP, I note that several elements in the WP disambiguation articles are not respecting the criteria to use only "identical title" which are covered on WP articles. It seems that many users consider disambiguation articles as a search index. And it is usually not a problem but advantages for users. If few users consider that some disambiguation articles featuring a search index is useless for them, they will probably not consult them in the future. This means there is no negative consequences for them. On the other hand, many users perceive great benefits to these search index and use them fluently. This saves them time to find the appropriate information. To date, nobody has sold me the idea that these articles featuring a pertinent search index on WP are useless.

If some WP users interpret the desambiguation rules in a restrictive way, it is necessary to question the WP rule and probably to propose a change. Should we consider adding a new category of articles, such a search index article which also include topic not yet covered by WP articles?

In summary, I consider "Bostonnais" and "Wayagamac" as a primary topic, eligible for WP desambiguation article in accordance with WP rules. Those single terms are ambiguous in navigation on WP. The efficiency must prevail. In the search for a compromise, I propose the idea of removing the word "disambiguation" from the article. That means the article will be a regular one. Keep it.(talk) 15:25, 27 December 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, Sandstein 14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The argument listed above, about "there are no absolute rules for determining a primary topic" is a strawman. The contention is not whether the primary topic is appropriate, but that the all the listed articles have completely different names, failing WP:PTM. As for the argument for not following the rules, I can only point to WP:FOLLOW. Gm545 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a dab page (as currently structured). These geographic locations are, and logically should be, independent articles; however, none of them is more significant or particularly more likely to generate page views than any of the others. The best solution is a dab page. Risker (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2014 (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. No compelling, policy-backed arguments have been made for this article's inclusion. Therefore, the article's subject is found to not meet our notability requirements at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Di Cagno[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator, a user with no other contributions. This article does not establish the notability of the subject. the onlyt sources are self-published or books by the subject - we do not say "X is notable as the author of book Y, source, book Y exists", which is essentially what this article does.

The only real attempt to assert notability is his role as an assistant to someone else who won a deep dive record. Notability is not inherited. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, sorry but I'm not so able in use Wikipedia. I wrote first this page on the author and then, when you proposed the deletion 'couse no references, I watched the Wiki rules, where f.ex. Google's books research page is considered has one. So I put it on. The author was awarded for his novels by the president of "Premio Letterario E. Casalini", mr. F. Ferraro, who is also the President of the Italian Fair of books... and I put a link on Premio Casalini on a government website, the Municipality of Piombino. So, in fact, I don't know what you mean exactly. Stefano Di Cagno is one of the most important diver in Italy, may be the Most one, author of books, founder of a magazine, explorer, and hardly engaged in social and civil right. Help me, because I don't understand... Happy new year, anyway ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammi1929 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao from Italy. My opinion is that on Wikipedia there are a lot of people there are not notable at all, and they still are here. This author is not only the best known writer of diving novels in Italy, but also one of the best sport and extreme diver in the world. You think at be "assistant to someone else" is a joke...? Yes, may be in your digital world: the "assistance" was done on the maximum deep of the recordwoman, and was a record itself: Italian and European deepest male dive!!! Has author, he is in the catalogue of the Italian National Biblioteque in Roma, and in those of the Central National Biblioteque of Florence (http://www.bncrm.librari.beniculturali.it/) (http://www.bncf.firenze.sbn.it/) His books are sold everywhere, from Amazon to the biggest Italian bookshops like Feltrinelli or Mondadori, and not only for one edition, but for a second in few year has everybody can mark with the ISBN reference numbers: Incubi decompressivi first edition ISBN 88-902358-1-0, sec. ed 978-88-908646-2-9 and Morire quassotto... first edition (???) second edition 978-88-908646-0-5 This is not a blog author or likesome... So, I don't understand this deletion request and I say NO!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.101.66 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched *.it and found one article online that mentions Di Cagno [9] .. the evidence doesn't suggest notability for Wikipedia. We need book reviews and newspaper and magazine articles about Di Cagno. Not by Cagno, but about Cagno. -- GreenC 05:34, 14 January 2014 (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.

Anirban Sengupta discography[edit]

The result was DELETE - User blocked for sockpuppetry. Alexf^(talk) 15:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of notability (A7) and is a Re-creation of previously deleted page by self promoting editor, has large slabs of unrelated WP page in text too The Banner talk 13:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, un-sourced self promotion. Note that I had CSD'd the page but the creator removed the template. 220 of ^Borg 14:42, 2 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 20:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayerson Law[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm. A firm with only 5 attorneys, whose "notable litigation" may well amount to a fair bit of puffery, given that several of the citations used to not mention the firm at all. There is no reliable source to indicate that the role this firm played in the Agent Orange litigation or the Ford Truck Safety issues was in any way significant, and other litigation listed as "notable" is really just run-of-the-mill legal work. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage in the "Waiting for an army to die" is a passing mention of one individual rather than the firm, which cannot inherit whatever notability attaches to that. This just looks like a firm going about its business; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:MILL is only an essay and it happens to be manifest nonsense. The general principle that it tries to assert seems to be the result of someone's spectacular misreading or failed synthesis of a number of disparate policies and guidelines. It is not a helpful essay and it would be better if it was never mentioned at AfD ever again. James500 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cited WP:MILL not as the policy in question that is violated, but simply as a touchstone for the kind of article that we have here. The coverage of the firm in question is minimal at best, because they have really not done anything extraordinary that would result in any real significant coverage. In other words, they are a "run-of-the-mill" law firm that has not received any particular attention. It is the lack of particular attention (i.e. no significant coverage) that is the fault here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my standards. These lawyers are just doing for their cients what is required by Model Rule 1.1 -- to be competent. That does not make them notable as a law firm. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Hy Mayerson might be marginally notable. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put Kids First[edit]

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

Non notable non-profit organization. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that any secondary sources exist for this at all. Surprisingly non notable. Perhaps the organization needs a less generic name? Gm545 (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once you get past the false positives that show up for things in other countries and the various things that use the phrase "put kids first", there really isn't a lot out there. I can find news stories that quote the organization's founder, but those don't count towards notability- those just show that she's been quoted. I found one YT video of the founder getting interviewed, but it looks like it was posted by the organization and not the news station's official channel, so we can't really use it. Even if it was, that's one source and we'd need multiple such sources. The goal of the organization is noble, but we can't keep pages based on whether or not we like the cause they're championing. We have to be able to show notability, which just doesn't seem to be there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 11:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Meier and the Deutsch[edit]

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

Non-notable band. The band has released quite a few songs according to their website, but I am not able to find any sign of notability. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article shows that there is a band. No tour, no charts, no other sources. Fails WP:BAND. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually it looks like qualifying for speedy. Agathoclea (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2014 (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. SPAs with COIs aside, evidence has been presented during the discussion which establishes the requisite notability for this article's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SORCER[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite enormous efforts by experienced Wikipedia editors to find WP:RS, to show WP:N and to ensure WP:V, the discussion has proved to be an endless round of:

Show me that this is notable?
It is notable because it is notable
Give me the reference?
The reference is somewhere in this list of probably non WP:RS material
If I find it, show me that this source is WP:RS?
It must be reliable because I say it is reliable
Return to number 1

This has been going on for a couple of days short of two months. This alone shows that the topic is not notable. Were it to be notable this would have been proven a long time ago. Doubtless people use this environment. Good. Maybe it will become notable one day. Today it is not. It has even been featured on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and people from there have been unable to provide WP:RS sources. The talk page is so immense and impenetrable that it has even required archival to try to clarify the discussions there, but no reliable sources are forthcoming to show notability. The efforts to establish notability have been massive, and have failed.

The entire article is a massive thrust by WP:COI editors to push this project into Wikipedia. It has a tranche of alleged references, many/ most/ all are unreviewed papers by those involved with the project. Those deceive the casual reader into believing that they are WP:RS because they appear authoritative. It contains a huge slew of neologisms, all associated with the project and, despite efforts, those appear to remain both impenetrable and unreferenced.

The original deletion discussion was closed thus "The result was no consensus. I'm hardly convinced keeping this article is the right call, but this discussion appears to have been hijaked by people involved with the program."

I am now, after a smidgen under two full months of people failing to show WP:N, nominating this for deletion, but without prejudice to future re-creation if and when WP:42 is satisfied. I have not yet been convinced that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:Incubation seems like a good middle ground for these kinds of cases. If someone really wants it in, they can put the work in to improve the article and prove notability before it gets let in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm545 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with where it is held as long as it is removed from the main namespace until it is ready to be there. The Draft: namespace is also ideal. Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation is currently in an RfC, to determine if they will be closed down in favor of WP:Drafts. At present we have SORCER in mainspace, and WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming in the AfC queue. Both are being actively worked on. The subject-matter is extremely complex, and there is a jargon-barrier built up during the past decade-and-a-half. That said, I've got somewhat of a grasp of the concepts ... no doubt Professor Sobolewski is a bit more pessimistic about my grasp than I am ... and progress on the talkpage seems reasonable. That said, I think this AfD will be productive, as a discussion of whether the freshly-compiled-and-ranked-and-summarized list of WP:RS do now, or do not yet, in fact achieve wikiNotability for SORCER-and-ancilliaries. Moving from mainspace into WP:Drafts is not out of the question, but I also disagree that it is clearly necessary, having spent significant time buried in the sources. Would love to have some second opinions on whether wikiNotability is achieved. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is an unusual case: most academic projects don't have the installed base that is evident here, and most production software doesn't significant coverage in the peer-reviewed literature. However, notability isn't met on either axis. The citation counts in the peer reviewed literature are too low to establish academic notability, and the absence of any notice outside the peer-review literature means we can't treat this as a standalone program. While incubation is an intriguing idea, I don't see additional time or effort overcoming the absence of notability. Garamond Lethet c 17:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) With regard to elapsed time, I believe that what may happen is that the notability we require will emerge, over time, in WP:RS, hence my having no issue with incubation or Draft: as locations. Because elements of this project appear to be classified material I fear, though, that it may only become notable in our terms once it is obsolete. However, since we are an encyclopaedia, not a news medium, I see no problem with the delay. Preservation ion the incubator could be ideal since talk page material will be better preserved than by simple userfication. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are folks at universities on four continents writing peer-reviewed papers, built on SORCER or about SORCER... not sure cite-counting in the EECS literature is the key here, because SORCER was originally a corporate-slash-government engineering project that became a university-slash-open-source-slash-government R&D project. Cite-counting is especially tricksy, if you consider that most of the activity for the USAF folks will be centered around the classified literature at the cutting edge, the var-oriented stuff which is not even available in the open-source reference-implementation. Of course, WP:REQUIRED applies, nobody has to invest time & effort that does not wish to. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I work on several corporate-slash-government engineering projects at various levels of classification. Most, like this one, don't have the notability necessary for an encyclopedia article. That doesn't mean those projects are unimportant, it just means there's a lack of coverage outside the peer-reviewed literature and insufficient citations within the peer-reviewed literature. Garamond Lethet c 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of automobiles on the road and throughout history that have all had and would not be the same without a glovebox hinge. However, until reliable sources decide to write in significant manner about glove box hinges, they will remain a red link at Wikipedia. And the same with SORCER - just because it exists and no matter how ubiquitous or useful, until a third party decides to write about it, it fails the requirements for having an article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have hundreds of reliable sources which give WP:NOTEWORTHY mention to glovebox hinges... all the Chiltons and Haynes and official service manuals explicitly mention them, for thousands of vehicle-models. But they are too trivial for wikipedia; we of course have hinge and also glovebox articles, even the venerable mop. But that's the wrong argument; SORCER/etc are not too trivial; they may be too rarefied, not yet mainstream enough, which is methinks what Garamond is saying in terms of cite-counts. But WP:GNG doesn't demand cite-counts, it just demands publication in peer-reviewed fact-checked places, right? I will ping folks when I have distilled the list into a brief set of diffs, prolly 24 hours or so. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG emphasizes WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources. Peer-reviewed literature is (to a first approximation) a WP:PRIMARY source. [Review articles are an excellent secondary source; the articles they're reviewing are primary sources.] We can use primary sources, but it's a difficult trick to establish notability using only primary sources. Garamond Lethet c 23:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY sources must be used with care, yes... but even pretty strictly defined as secondary-source-or-multiple-refereed-papers-each-with-double-digit-cite-counts, we have aerospace engineering/industrial engineering researchers based in Ohio, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, N.Carolina, Poland, China, Russia, UK/Singapore, plus the new Dassault stuff I just found (from France/RhodeIsland). How much more careful can we be?

well... not quite only primary sources... but here is my difficult-trick-argument, if you can brave the WP:WALLOFTEXT
True, the emphasis is on secondary sources, such as newspapers (like the Russian ones Beavercreekful found) and several academic-lit-review papers; we have those also, though they are not especially widely-cited by EECS standards (SORCER is really AeroE though! different field entirely). Also true, WP:PRIMARY sources can be used, but "with care" is the caveat. The SORCER paper with the highest cite-count we know about is 75, which is the 2000 one by Rohl/Kolonay/Irani/Sobolewski/Kao Sobolewski and Kolonay are the key proponents of SORCER inside the USAF nowadays). The next-highest cite-count specifically and only about SORCER is the opus SORCER'08 by Sobolewski, at 43 cites, plus exertion-oriented-programming the year before at 36. Many modern efforts, such as the 2012 Dayton PhD thesis, actually only cite Sobolewski's Handbook-2010 (has 11 cites so far), which is more pratical-minded than the EECS-oriented academic papers of 2007/2008. There are about a dozen co-authors involved with that core work. We also have W.D.Li with 64 cites, and C.D.Cera with 67 cites, and K.Deb with 33 cites (for MOO ... plus 8000 cites in their broader MOO lit); these all seem independent folks to me, not involved with the current SORCER team, but rather with offshoots from the predecessor-project FIPER. With the exception of K.Deb and the MOO-lit, I haven't looked into all their work in detail, to see how much ink they give to SORCER-fka-FIPER, but my basic argument here is, we have the following: roughly a dozen papers-with-double-digit-cite-counts that mention FIPER, roughly a dozen papers-with-double-digit-cite-counts that mention SORCER, spanning not just several research-groups but several continents. SORCER is almost entirely applied specifically in aerospace-engineering and industrial-engineering, but we have important math-quant-rockstar-authors in like Kalyanmoy Deb specifically mentioning FIPER and citing papers by Sobolewski (chief inventor of SORCER) and Kolonay (chief champion of SORCER apps) in the sub-sub-discipline of Computer Science known as multi-objective optimization which is mostly used for economics stuff like mitigating risk in stock-market-portfolios. We also have the depth, and although some of our most-in-depth-papers are WP:PRIMARY in a technical sense, they are also impeccably peer-reviewed and editorially-fact-checked across a dozen year. Last but not least, although Sobolewski has been working sixteen-hour-days for the past two decades, and is listed as a co-author on work with Kolonay from Ohio, Rubach from Poland, Cha/Yu/Xu from China, Berger from Texas&Germany, Goel from New York, and of course half-a-dozen of the most-in-depth peer-reviewed WP:PRIMARY sources we have, this is not a one-man project. There are still at least a couple double-digit-cite-count papers by each of W.D.Li of UK&Singapore, Cera/Kim/Han of Pennsylvania, Nnaji of Pennsylvania, and Wujek/Koch of N.Carolina (these latter two went on to win awards while commercializing FIPER as iSight for Dassault). That's not even counting U.Cranfield and RMIT in Australia. But the real kicker is not the academic breadth, in the field of aerospace engineering primarily (and computer science secondarily e.g. Berger's filesystems). The real-world use of SORCER is the key; it began life as a commercial-made-slash-government-funded project FIPER in the late 1990s, used to design turbines at GE. A decade and a half later, we have newspaper articles indicating the Russians use SORCER for aerospace, and half-a-dozen academic papers about traffic-noise in China (by Nan Li et al who methinks is unconnected to Cha/Yu/Xu ... plus on-wiki hints of User:Kazumo's quad-year research project from 2012-2015), and of course we know from the unclassified papers by Kolonay and Sobolewski and Burton and friends (plus the larger bulk of classified papers the small number in the open imply) that the USAF is designing vehicles with SORCER. p.s. I disagree with scope_creep about the relevance of mogramming, which is both brand newish (2011 paper has 2 cites on google scholar), and furthermore not fully declassified by AFRL yet. Exertions and SORCER culminated into a relatively final academic form during 2007/2008, as a generalized form of FIPER. But the predecessor-system is definitely also the brainchild of Sobolewski/Kolonay (and to a lesser extent Wujek/Koch), with the 75 cites from the original FIPER 2000 paper. p.p.s. Speaking of Wujek and Koch of Engenious Software, the North Carolina startup which was involved during the FIPER project, then acquired in 2008 by Dassault... subsidiary overviews,[10][11][12] 2007 .ppt for the USN (page 36 and 37 give key concept... plus university-testimonial on page 45 and customer-testimonial on page 20),[13][14] 2008 paywall,[15] 2009 mag review,[16][17] 2011 press-release picked up by Reuters,[18] 2012 lawsuit,[19] 2013 newspaper,[20] 2013 govtpub,[21] and so on.[22]"Engineous"+OR+"iSIGHT"+OR+"SIMULIA")+("dassault"+OR+"3ds")[23] Adding that onto their academic publications, Wujek & Koch have enough sources for a stub-article all to themselves, methinks. Heh heh heh... after previewing it turns out there is already an article on that branch of the FIPER/SORCER tree... the articles does not mention the iSIGHT/FIPER product nor Engenious at all, but instead only discusses the primary Abaqus product acquired by Dassault from a different startup HKS and then later legally-bundled-up with the FIPER/Engenious/iSIGHT acquisition. Ironically, but expectedly of course, the existing article currently cites one blog, one deadlink to what sounds like a republished press-release, and two deeplinks to the parent corporation... none of the Wujek & Koch academic papers, and none of the journalism I ran across for Engenious, are anywhere to be seen. So, we can add the iSIGHT stuff to that article, and keep it separate from SORCER, and cover FIPER in one or the other or both. Or, we can just rename the main SORCER article to FIPER... then have SORCER/Sorcer be a redirect to FIPER#SORCER, as well as WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming be a redirect to FIPER#EOP, and Engenious Software as well as Simulia/SIMULIA as well as iSIGHT optimization-software (not the same as Apple iSight webcams!) be a redirect to FIPER#Dassault. Prolly also need to redirect SorcerSoft.com to FIPER#SORCER tools. But arguably, we have enough sources to have dedicated articles on FIPER, SORCER/Sobolewski(AFRL/Poland), and Simulia/Engenious(Dassault/RhodeIsland).

well... not quite *only* primary sources... but here is my difficult-trick-argument, if you can brave the WP:WALLOFTEXT

True, the emphasis is on secondary sources, such as newspapers (like the Russian ones Beavercreekful found) and several academic-lit-review papers; we have those also, though they are not especially widely-cited by EECS standards (SORCER is really AeroE though! different field entirely). Also true, WP:PRIMARY sources can be used, but "with care" is the caveat. The SORCER paper with the highest cite-count we know about is 75, which is the 2000 one by Rohl/Kolonay/Irani/Sobolewski/Kao Sobolewski and Kolonay are the key proponents of SORCER inside the USAF nowadays). The next-highest cite-count specifically and *only* about SORCER is the opus SORCER'08 by Sobolewski, at 43 cites, plus exertion-oriented-programming the year before at 36. Many modern efforts, such as the 2012 Dayton PhD thesis, actually only cite Sobolewski's Handbook-2010 (has 11 cites so far), which is more pratical-minded than the EECS-oriented academic papers of 2007/2008. There are about a dozen co-authors involved with that core work.

We also have W.D.Li with 64 cites, and C.D.Cera with 67 cites, and K.Deb with 33 cites (for MOO ... plus 8000 cites in their broader MOO lit); these all seem independent folks to me, not involved with the current SORCER team, but rather with offshoots from the predecessor-project FIPER. With the exception of K.Deb and the MOO-lit, I haven't looked into all their work in detail, to see how much *ink* they give to SORCER-fka-FIPER, but my basic argument here is, we have the following: roughly a dozen papers-with-double-digit-cite-counts that mention FIPER, roughly a dozen papers-with-double-digit-cite-counts that mention SORCER, spanning not just several research-groups but several continents. SORCER is almost entirely applied specifically in aerospace-engineering and industrial-engineering, but we have important math-quant-rockstar-authors in like Kalyanmoy Deb specifically mentioning FIPER and citing papers by Sobolewski (chief inventor of SORCER) and Kolonay (chief champion of SORCER apps) in the sub-sub-discipline of Computer Science known as multi-objective optimization which is mostly used for economics stuff like mitigating risk in stock-market-portfolios.

We *also* have the depth, and although some of our most-in-depth-papers are WP:PRIMARY in a technical sense, they are also impeccably peer-reviewed and editorially-fact-checked across a dozen year. Last but not least, although Sobolewski has been working sixteen-hour-days for the past two decades, and is listed as a co-author on work with Kolonay from Ohio, Rubach from Poland, Cha/Yu/Xu from China, Berger from Texas&Germany, Goel from New York, and of course half-a-dozen of the most-in-depth peer-reviewed WP:PRIMARY sources we have, this is not a one-man project. There are still at least a couple double-digit-cite-count papers by each of W.D.Li of UK&Singapore, Cera/Kim/Han of Pennsylvania, Nnaji of Pennsylvania, and Wujek/Koch of N.Carolina (these latter two went on to win awards while commercializing FIPER as iSight for Dassault). That's not even counting U.Cranfield and RMIT in Australia.

But the real kicker is not the academic breadth, in the field of aerospace engineering primarily (and computer science secondarily e.g. Berger's filesystems). The real-world use of SORCER is the key; it began life as a commercial-made-slash-government-funded project FIPER in the late 1990s, used to design turbines at GE. A decade and a half later, we have newspaper articles indicating the Russians use SORCER for aerospace, and half-a-dozen academic papers about traffic-noise in China (by Nan Li et al who methinks is unconnected to Cha/Yu/Xu ... plus on-wiki hints of User:Kazumo's quad-year research project from 2012-2015), and of course we *know* from the unclassified papers by Kolonay and Sobolewski and Burton and friends (plus the larger bulk of classified papers the small number in the open imply) that the USAF is designing vehicles with SORCER.

p.s. I disagree with scope_creep about the relevance of mogramming, which is both brand newish (2011 paper has 2 cites on google scholar), and furthermore not fully declassified by AFRL yet. Exertions and SORCER culminated into a relatively final academic form during 2007/2008, as a generalized form of FIPER. But the predecessor-system is definitely also the brainchild of Sobolewski/Kolonay (and to a lesser extent Wujek/Koch), with the 75 cites from the original FIPER 2000 paper.

p.p.s. Speaking of Wujek and Koch of Engenious Software, the North Carolina startup which was involved during the FIPER project, then acquired in 2008 by Dassault... subsidiary overviews,[10][11][12] 2007 .ppt for the USN (page 36 and 37 give key concept... plus university-testimonial on page 45 and customer-testimonial on page 20),[13][14] 2008 paywall,[15] 2009 mag review,[16][17] 2011 press-release picked up by Reuters,[18] 2012 lawsuit,[19] 2013 newspaper,[20] 2013 govtpub,[21] and so on.[22]"Engineous"+OR+"iSIGHT"+OR+"SIMULIA")+("dassault"+OR+"3ds")[23]

Adding that onto their academic publications, Wujek & Koch have enough sources for a stub-article all to themselves, methinks. Heh heh heh... after previewing it turns out there is already an article on that branch of the FIPER/SORCER tree... the articles does not mention the iSIGHT/FIPER product nor Engenious at all, but instead only discusses the primary Abaqus product acquired by Dassault from a *different* startup HKS and then later legally-bundled-up with the FIPER/Engenious/iSIGHT acquisition. Ironically, but expectedly of course, the existing article currently cites one blog, one deadlink to what sounds like a republished press-release, and two deeplinks to the parent corporation... none of the Wujek & Koch academic papers, and none of the journalism I ran across for Engenious, are anywhere to be seen. So, we can add the iSIGHT stuff to that article, and keep it separate from SORCER, and cover FIPER in one or the other or both.

Or, we can just rename the main SORCER article to FIPER... then have SORCER/Sorcer be a redirect to FIPER#SORCER, as well as WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming be a redirect to FIPER#EOP, and Engenious Software as well as Simulia/SIMULIA as well as iSIGHT optimization-software (not the same as Apple iSight webcams!) be a redirect to FIPER#Dassault. Prolly also need to redirect SorcerSoft.com to FIPER#SORCER tools. But arguably, we have enough sources to have dedicated articles on FIPER, SORCER/Sobolewski(AFRL/Poland), *and* Simulia/Engenious(Dassault/RhodeIsland).

We meet the letter of WP:GNG ten times over; all that is being argued here is the spirit of WP:N, methinks. It is an argument well worth having, because I think we *should* have articles on Garamond's work, whatever it is. WP:GNG isn't supposed to be an insurmountable bar, it is merely supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is wheat here, in the FIPER/SORCER/Simulia topic, methinks. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. SORCER is a software platform, and all by itself is a reasonably broad topic, with various sub-topics, plus various application-areas (jet-aircraft-design and traffic-noise-maps and generic grid-computing among others). Currently there are actually *two* articles, both of them about one aspect of the platform or another. Here is the quick breakdown:

SORCER, an article about the main piece of software, which began as a corporate project in the late 1990s (called FIPER at the time), changed to the university-based SORCER#0 project from 2002-2009 (in Texas/China/Russia/etc), and as of 2010 was spun off into the independent open-source-based SORCER#1 project + the USAF/WPAFB/AFRL/MSTC classified SORCER#2 project, and as of 2012 there is now a commercial corporation SORCER#3 which is a fork of #0 and #1 but distinct from #2. Clear as mud? Please see the investigation of sources here — Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing, which also has a Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing.2C_further_discussion_thereof where commentary & questions would be much appreciated.

WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming, which is a software methodology invented for SORCER, or perhaps, SORCER#0/#1/#2/#3 variants are the first sibling-implementations *of* this methodology. Unclear at the moment whether there ought to be a separate article, or if SORCER#EOP (which does not yet exist despite the bluelink) is more correct. Commentary at the bottom of the AfC page is mostly tech-oriented, Martijn and myself trying to grok the jargon, and not yet WP:RS oriented (see the SORCER-talkpage link above for that stuff).

I will try to put together a nice list of the "top five" in-depth independent Reliable Sources we have for SORCER/EOP/mogramming/etc, with pointers to the policy-backing if needed. Thanks for improving wikipedia folks; apologies, but this one is pretty bloody complicated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete if IP 74.192.84.101 provides a list of reliable third party sources (as has previously been requested on the article talk page) please ping me so that I can review the sources and my !vote. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC) keep and completely rewrite - Ahnoneemoos has provided sources that support the GNG presumption of notability. Now what remains is the question of whether or not a viable article can be created based upon those independent sources - that would be an entirely different article, but that can be handled through the article talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The eventual outcome really needs to be an active outcome, to delete, to keep, or to relocate. It is probably inappropriate to have a second no consensus outcome. The first closure as this was sound because the discussion was, at best, unusual, and also made no progress. Here, though, my feeling is that we need an outcome which determines the immediate fate of the article. This means that we require accurate and unemotional discussions based upon facts and policies. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT have no place in our discussions, nor does a detailed exposé of SORCER's internals, methodology, mechanisms and so forth. People wanting to see all of those items may visit the article talk page and its archive.Clarity of discussion will allow the eventual closing admin to reach a decent conclusion. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG which states that:

[A] topic [that] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject [...] is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

The following independent reliable sources have covered SORCER:

Cloud Computing and Services Science by Ivan Ivanov, Marten van Sinderen, Boris Shishkov; ISBN 9781461423263. See page 10 and forward: [24]
Dr. Ivanov is an Associate Professor at SUNY Empire State College who was awarded the SUNY Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Teaching (see [25]). He also managed a project in 1996 which was "nominated by IDC, U.S.A. within the top 25 in the world as the best and brightest 25 companies’ IT projects around the globe” (see [26]).
Advances in Computer Science and IT by D M Akbar Hussain; ISBN 978-953-7619-51-0. See page 337: [27].
Dr. Akbar Hussain is an Associate Professor at Aalborg University in Denmark (see [28]). He is also a member of the editorial board of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON COMPUTER ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IJCEIT) -- see [29]
Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment: Proceedings of the 19th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering by Josip Stjepandić, Georg Rock, Cees Bil; ISBN 9781447144267. See page 998: [30]
Dr. Cees Bil is an Associate Professor at RMIT University (see [31]) who received a Royal Aeronautical Society Educational Award in 2003.
20th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Proceedings by C. Bil, J. Mo, J. Stjepandić; ISBN 9781614993025. See page 387: [32]
C. Bil's professionalism has been covered in the above item.

Suggestion is to do a search on the keywords 'SORCER cloud' so that you can see that the subject is evidently notable. What the sources are is irrelevant for us at Wikipedia since the sources are (1) reliable and (2) independent of the subject since the editors and publishers are not related to SORCER. Evenmoreso, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars.

Ivanov's and Bil's first book were published by Springer Science+Business Media which is indubitably a well-known reliable publisher.

Hussain's book was published by InTech, the "world's largest multidisciplinary open access publisher of books covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine." InTech's authors includes 2,277 authors from Top 100 Universities; 4,638 authors from Top 200 Universities; and 10,887 authors from Top 500 Universities.

Bil's second book was published by IOS Press which is, once again, an indubitably well-known reliable publisher.

So, all in all, we have proven that (1) the sources are reliable, (2) the publishers are reliable, (3) the sources are independent from SORCER, (4) the publishers are independent from SORCER and most importantly (5) SORCER has received significant coverage by multiple independent & reliable sources.

Case closed, keep.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. These are all collections from conferences, and as such the publisher is providing no additional editorial oversight: all accepted papers get put into hardcover. If the individual papers concerning SORCER establish notability, great, the case is indeed closed. But, in my opinion, these collections do not add to the notability of the individual papers. Garamond Lethet c 08:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to look at the citation counts of the individual papers (I was not able to quickly track down the second book).

Cloud Computing and Services Science contains the paper "Object-Oriented Service Clouds for Transdisciplinary Computing", which has been cited 4 times.
Concurrent Engineering Approaches contains the paper "Service Oriented Programming for Design Space Exploration", which has not yet been cited.
20th ISPE contains the paper "Physics Based Distributed Collaborative Desgin ...", which has also not been cited.

If the wider computing community is not (yet!) citing this work, it's not clear to me why the topic is ripe for an encyclopedia article. Garamond Lethet c 08:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Fiddle Faddle is going endless rounds on this (that's 2nd nomination for deletion made again by Fiddle Faddle …):

asking for proves for notability, for proper resourcing etc.
other folks are collecting proves
Fiddle Faddle is nor reading neither discussing with any of arguments presented
then Fiddle Faddle is asking again for proves and nominating for deletion

He nor read neither discuss with any of arguments summarized in previous one. Here are examples of his words (from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SORCER):

„I do not get particularly involved with Wikilawyering and chapter and verse”
„I will not engage with you on chapter and verse level”

So here let's tell it again: all proves You are asking for are above, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SORCER and on Talk:SORCER. Discussion is done … what is missing is Fiddle Faddle understanding … Fiddle Faddle - If You still happend to have any doubts please point out which of the presented proves are not showing sufficient notability or proper sourcing by underlining which exact points of wikipedia rules are not satisfied. It is the base for all of us to conduct discussion, refine the article if necessary and achieve consensus.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC) — Pawelpacewicz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pawelpacewicz: I've not seen any proof of notability yet. Ahnoneemoos made an understandable mistake in thinking an (automatic) collection of primary literature from a conference conveyed additional notability beyond the individual papers. If you want to make an argument that publication in the peer-reviewed literature conveys notability, then make that argument. If it succeeds, there's a dozen articles I need to write on my own work. I suspect, though, that other editors want to see a little more traction in the wider community before considering a topic ripe for an article. When an article describing SORCER hits 100 citations, I'd argue that time has arrived. I'll ask again what I've asked a couple of time on the talk page: what paper describing SORCER has the highest citation count? Garamond Lethet c 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawelpacewicz: I have seen no proof of notability. You, as a WP:COI editor who is deeply involved in this project want this article here. You have not proved notability and thus the article has to go unless someone can. This is an encyclopaedia not a collection of projects that aren't WP:N. There is a high bar to step over. It's taken you two months to fail to prove notability. How many more months is appropriate? All conversations are as at the heading of this nomination for deletion. It's high time you deployed rigour rather than puffery. This article is 100% trade puffery. Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to Garamond Lethe - thank You for your feedback. I understand your proposal for notability measurement (more than 100 citations) ... but ... with all the respect ... that's your proposal for notability measurement ... but still it's not among wikipedia rules. I'm interested with your opinon on arguments collected on Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing which are showing it. Could You please point out which of the presented proves are not showing sufficient notability or proper sourcing by underlining which exact points of wikipedia rules are not satisfied?

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pawelpacewicz, that's an excellent question. My answer is that I'm only seeing WP:PRIMARY sources listed on the SORCER talk page, and WP:GNG states "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Personally, I'm willing to assume notability even in the absence of secondary literature if the citation counts in the primary literature are sufficiently high, but that's not the case here. Garamond Lethet c 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle - If You still happend to have any doubts please point out which of the presented proves are not showing sufficient notability or proper sourcing by underlining which exact points of wikipedia rules are not satisfied. It is the base for all of us to conduct discussion, refine the article if necessary and achieve consensus.

Since begining - You did not gave any single answer to this question. You are just repeating that it's not proven ... but You are not explaining what's missing in presented proves. So this 2nd nomination does not make sense because during 1st one You stopped dialog ... looks like this time You will repeat the same scheme ... You will not come into dialog on what's missing in presented proves ...

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN. It is up to you to prove that the project that you work in is notable since you created the article and you work in the project and, if I recall, added all the references. Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman! No fighting here! This is the war room! :-) Everybody stay WP:NICE, if you don't mind, less sniping and less repetition will be much appreciated; focus on content, not contributor, as the old saying goes. Garamond, your concerns about citing conference papers are justified by the "with care" of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but not by the letter of WP:GNG. As for GNG, it *is* just a guideline, and I've collected the important bits from GoogleScholar, over on the talkpage. FIPER and SORCER are wikiNotable as computer aided engineering methinks, a branch of aerospace-engineering or industrial-engineering when dealt with in academia, and pretty much distinct from computer science (in the same way that applied math is distinct from pure math). Have a look-see please, if you will. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I still think the references satisfy WP:GNG even more so now, when they have been checked by 4 sets of eyes. I watched the video demonstration of the var-oriented mogramming system, read the 3 articles and I am now reading through the rest of the material, Jini, Javaspaces, domain specific languages etc, to get a better understanding of the system. I've read through most of the source references in the past month, and looked at the docs, and still believe it's worthy of inclusion in WP, but I know presents an immediate problem to a number of editors. The first is the sources and WP:COI issue. The latter I've think has been satisfied, the former, I think in this case is worrisome, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. Like any idea of concept, WP:COI is applicable in some areas/subjects but works less well, and is less applicable is other areas. Software and software systems being one of them. In the consumer or public realm, where WP:COI works well, a product or idea is built and developed and when it becomes well known, WP can easily find sources for it. WP:COI doesn't work for software that well. Most software is envisioned, designed and built by a single person, with a small team around them, in a commercial environment. So the logical choice is the person who wrote the software but again that presents a problem, as third party views/ideas are excluded. I think if WP:COI were lessened somehow, say using an article metric (1..5) where articles creator could attach, for example a 5 enabling the primary individual to add content, 2 would be some content, 1 none. This would improve remarkably 70% of the software articles on WP in one go and fix articles which are blatantly crap. But that aside. The article itself presents a problem. Neologism's aside,(all computer jargon started as a neologism) the article needs rewritten. Not just this article, but additional content is needed is several other, perhaps as much as 50 other articles to enable it to sit comfortably, and be well linked. The [Programming] AFC explains in some detail how SORCER works. It should be merged into the article. It is an important article. WP can't just be stuff that's either celebrity driven listcruft/fan pages, or your average encyclopedia contents about dead emperors. It needs cutting edge articles to give it edge. The problem is we don't have anybody to actually do it. Who does it, if WP:COI scares away the primary editor. At the end of the day, the only way to really understand the system is to look at the code, which I intend to do. scope_creep talk 19:47 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep The article still needs some work to resolve the ugly tags. But most can probably just go away. Not all refereed publications are strictly "primary". They are usually primary on the very particular topic of the paper, but this article seems to be about a number of efforts over a decade or more, not one limited project. And primary sources are fine for citations if the information in the article is indeed found in the article cited. The policy is that topics need a fair number of non-primary sources to be considered notable; not that they are outlawed altogether. They are often more reliable for example than blog postings which serve as sources for many other articles. W Nowicki (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reviewing the talk page, I'd say we have more than enough sources to establish the notability of FIPER (the original project) and the SORCER material could easily be made part of that article. Would a move be an acceptable compromise? Garamond Lethet c 19:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yes... see my reply to you above a few hours ago. We already have an article on the French fork of FIPER in mainspace (woefully unsourced... but with a bit of WP:GOOG about ten good ones turned up for me without trouble), and it could make sense to do a triple-merge. However, because the different projects are all basically the same codebase, just evolved for slightly different purposes (Chinese traffic-noise and USAF wing-design and Dassault automotive-design and SorcerSoft.com GUI-tools ... but all with the same CAE collaborative design-time automated-optimization) my thinking is that we should create a central article with the children and grandchildren of FIPER each given their own section, per giving credit where credit is WP:DUE, and then create SORCER as a redirect to FIPER#SORCER. (Since the Dassault stuff is news to me, I might change my mind, if it turns out that their codebase is now significantly divergent; also, I'm not sure how divergent the SORCER codebase is from the original FIPER... I know that SORCER'03 and SORCER'08 are architected quite distinctly.) That said, I *would* really rather close this AfD now (which is of course just a question of keep-versus-moveToAFC), and open a separate discussion later (for the stay-versus-mergeToFIPER), once we get some answers about the distinguishing characteristics of the kids/grandkids/cousins/etc of good old FIPER. Is this agreeable? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP most of ugly tags can be removed. I agree with most of opinions above that wikiNotability is proven. There are primary sources ... but it's not a problem because they are not alone ... we have here other documents which are secondary sources (confirmed by others above and on Talk:SORCER). In my opinion SORCER should stay as main article and FIPER should be part of SORCER article as SORCER is actual evolutionary version of FIPER/SORCER initiative/project. And in my opinion for Wikipedia it will be better to have articles describing actual state of any field (FIPER/SORCER in this case).

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

It took me a few months to go through many SORCER papers. They are for sure sufficient for accepting notability of the innovative service-oriented research and the exiting system. I have to admit they are difficult to comprehend due to service antinomies caused by the different mindset of the concept of services and federations in SORCER. They are front-end services (exertions) and back-end federations. Normally a single service provider (e.g. app server) provides services at the backed while in SORCER it's a federation of service providers that is mapped to the from-end service easily created by end users (not programmers as it is done with back-end services like web services). In web services there is for example BPEL to compose service but that is done at the back-end by software developers. In SORCER exertion-oriented programming is a kind of BPEL but at the front-end treated as a DSL (domain-specific language) for the end users, not software developers - that's the key differentiator. If experienced editors can describe that well: front-end services and federations versus backs-end services hosted by app services and composed at the back-end on app servers then it will be a great article not only for me to learn more but for most people interested in new trends in service-oriented computing. I agree with 74.192.84.101 that SORCER is the CAE environment however the whole infrastructure: service-opertaing system and service front-end mogramming is pure computer science.Beavercreekful (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I would like to answer/comment list from the top of this article:

Show me that this is notable?
It is notable because it is notable
- NOT TRUE - proofs for notability are available here:
  - Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing - best summary of all proofs and independent opinions on wikinotability and sourcing,
  - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SORCER starting with words: "In my opinion it is WP:RS and WP:N" - still waiting for Fiddle Faddle opinion what's missing in those proofs ...
  - in this article above - various opinions on presented proofs
Give me the reference?
The reference is somewhere in this list of probably non WP:RS material
- NOT TRUE - list of references are available here:
  - Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing - summary of references - reviewed by Wikipedians
  - in this article above - i.e. opinion signed: "Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"
If I find it, show me that this source is WP:RS?
It must be reliable because I say it is reliable
- NOT TRUE - discussion on reliability is available here:
  - Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing - together with references
  - in this article above - i.e. opinion signed as:
    - "Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"
    - "scope_creep talk 19:47 5 January 2014 (UTC)"
    - "W Nowicki (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)"
Return to number 1

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tango en Tres[edit]

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

Apparently insufficient notability to meet WP:BAND. No reliable sources in the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails too meet GNG, as there's no reliable sources (and I couldn't find any), no relevant claims of notability, and also highly promotional intro. Alex^{discussion ★} 11:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced and even if it wasn't, there's nothing sufficient enough to make it past WP:MUSICBIO. Gm545 (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The band is mentioned in passing in various books, for instance by Jorge Strada in the book Historia orientativa del tango: 1880-1995, but there is no dedicated book coverage. Online sources fare rather better: Alternativa Teatral (dedicated biography of bandleader Julian Graciano), Argentina es Tango (dedicated coverage of Graciano), Recursos Culturales (combination of Graciano bio and band info), and Tinta Roja – Revista de Tango (interview with the band). These would not help much with BAND but they help toward WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They're all in Spanish. If they do have significant coverage in the Spanish-language media, would it be more suitably moved to a different language-version? Gm545 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Withdrawing as per language guidelines. Gm545 (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2014 (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 and merge with ileostomy. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnett continent intestinal reservoir[edit]

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

This is an undisguised advertisement for the product, complete with directions on how to use it. It;s possible that an article would be warrented here, but it would have to be done by removing this and starting over, DGG ( talk ) 10:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article detailing a particular surgical procedure and its history. All data is cited and all information is verifiable. I do not think it warrants deletion. AA Cab (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect + merge with to ileostomy, as we do with many other products. --LT910001 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect + merge with ileostomy, as per already established practice. Alex^{discussion ★} 11:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect + merge with ileostomy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 8 January 2014 (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 The result was delete. LadyofShalott 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA (novel)[edit]

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

According to worldcat, the various parts of this trilogy are in a total of 5 libraries. Cannot possibly be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparently failing to meet the WP:NBOOK threshold for notability. Novel claim about "infectious amnesia" is not correct. - Dravecky (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I donate to Wikipedia and I swear, I will never do so again if this page is taken down, especially because of some moron who is looking for faults in other people on Christmas Fucking Day.

C'mon?

Geoff Nelder is a great writer (and yes, a great friend) and his words and works are of important historical recording, unlike these Nazi's who want to remove him from the greatest history book of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.109.120 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2013

30 December 2013 - This is Jolie du Pre. (I can see that some of Nelder's readers are angry about Wikipedia threatening to remove his ARIA page. However, please know that I did not write the comments that proceed mine.) Nelder has asked me to correct his page. I will attempt to do that on Jan. 1, 2014. SO PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE ARIA PAGE. GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON IT. As I said, I'll be doing that on Jan. 1, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joliedupre2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 January 2014 - This is Jolie du Pre. I am continuing my update of the ARIA page January 2, 2014 . PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE PAGE.Joliedupre2 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to issue a warning about language- cursing out someone is not a good way to get your point across. Because you are so heated, I'd like to point you and the others towards WP:COI, our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. Editing with a COI means that you might see more notability than there actually is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far my biggest issue is that while I am finding sources, there is a problem of the author's association with some of the sites. By this I mean that Nelder is a member of the British Fantasy Society, which makes the award and review from them somewhat WP:PRIMARY since it's ultimately in their best interest to write good reviews for their members and give them awards. Does this automatically mean that they give nothing but glowing reviews and various awards? Of course not- but that's a big issue here and most groups have to be extremely transparent and established to really go above the big issues for primary sources. I think that so far the best option would be to redirect to the author's page, which needs a lot of cleaning itself. To any of the fans, please don't take this badly. This doesn't mean that the author's page will get deleted or that he's any less of a good author in your eyes, just that notability standards are very strict on here. Please do not take this out on the page or any of the editors here, as this does not help the author out any as far as his reputation goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geoff Nelder/Delete. Once you take away the sources from the BFS, you really don't have much. I don't see the National Trust Going Green as a site that we'd really consider to be a RS, but that's sort of a moot point since the source is using a comment by Nelder in an article that has nothing to do with the actual book or author at all. That doesn't show notability. That's the type of thing that would be considered WP:TRIVIAL at best. Now I'm not really all that certain about the notability for the author either. I was hoping that I'd find more sourcing for him, but the sourcing for Nelder as a whole is relatively spotty. I'll probably nominate him for deletion, as he doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. Again, I really hope that the fanbase doesn't take this too hard. It's very, very, VERY hard to pass notability guidelines on here. I've seen authors that hit the New York Times' bestseller list not pass notability guidelines- and these are people whose books are sold through major publishers. I remember having to fight a little bit to assert notability for WOOL when someone tried to PROD it for deletion, so it's not as easy as saying "I'm a fan, this is notable". I have to repeat- it's insanely hard. But the problem here is that while I'd love to bend the notability guidelines for someone, we can't do that. The rules are strict because in the past we did just that and people pretty much abused this leniency and the looser guidelines to where we have stricter guidelines and we don't give any leniency. We have to hold everyone to the same standards, which unfortunately means that a lot of smaller authors get deleted. It's just that we can't keep articles based on sentiment- we have to have coverage in RS and it's just not there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking for sources and hopefully I'll find some more for Nelder, but the search isn't bringing up much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave the author's page for now- there's just enough to where I could possibly argue for a keep, but it's insanely light and much of the non-ARIA stuff is local. I honestly don't know that it would make it through AfD if it's ultimately put up for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On another side note to any of the fans that are reading, a good thing to do for right now would be to hit up the main reviewing websites and magazines/papers such as Tor.com, Locus, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Strange Horizons, and whatnot in order to petition for them to read and review Nelder's work and/or write articles about him. Some of them do allow for reader submissions, but be aware that we can only accept such sources when they come from places that have a good editorial board that we're familiar with and can verify. That's why many places such as blog sources aren't usable as reliable sources- most have no editorial board or one that can't be verified for accuracy and so on. Petitioning them isn't a guarantee that they'll review the work, but it's more productive than cursing out a Wikipedia editor/administrator, which accomplishes nothing and makes other editors immediately go on the defensive. Getting overly defensive will not help out anyone, least of all the author. As someone who has seen stuff like this happen on various sites, stuff like this can get around and before you know it, the behavior of a few fans is now linked to the author, who gains a negative reputation because of it. Seriously, it can ruin reputations, so please- no more cursing or threats. I know that not all of you have done this and I thank you for that, but this is a blanket warning. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything else aside, it appears to not meet any of the five WP:NBOOK criteria. Just being a book and winning a minor award doesn't cut it. Gm545 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2, January, 2013 - ARIA is more than just a book that won a "minor award." Nelder introduced Alien Retrograde Infectious Amnesia, a fictional condition, never used previously, that authors of the future may want to refer to and even incorporate into their own works. Does the author need to be a Michael Crichton, or an Eoin Colfer to be included in Wikipedia? Joliedupre2 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, but as a rule of thumb, the exclusionary criteria in WP:NBOOK gives a guide to suggest that if the book isn't included in its country's national library, it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I checked the British Library's website and couldn't find this book. As for the claim about the novelty of alien infectious retrograde amnesia, it appears that infectious retrograde amnesia already existed as a non-fictional condition (see Retrograde_amnesia#Infections). Simply adding the concept that it's alien I think wouldn't be enough. Also, given that it's not notable enough to have been included in the British Library, you'd need some exceptional grounds for inclusion. I'd say the concept would be an un-exceptional reason. If it is true that in the future that your assertion is borne out, that future writers use this as a work of classic literature, THEN it would be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL.Gm545 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, the problem with coming up with new ideas is that the idea doesn't automatically make someone notable. You have to prove that someone has used the idea, that they credit the author in a reliable source, and most importantly- that the people that are using the new idea are notable. A dozen self-published obscure authors would not really count towards notability, not if the new idea isn't actually credited to Nelder in a reliable source. An example of what would count would be say, Charlaine Harris or Jeaniene Frost saying Laurell K Hamilton was an inspiration. The obvious problem is that not all authors are going to outright say this even if they're notable. The authors could turn around and say that they came up with this specific idea- and you can't do anything to disprove it. Case in point: Repo Men looks to have "borrowed" liberally from Repo! The Genetic Opera, but everyone involved in Repo Men denies this- despite the huge, huge similarities. Repo! fans have called BS for years, but that doesn't mean squat because as long as the other people say it's their idea, you can't prove anything. Even if they don't outright say it was their original idea, you still can't prove that they were inspired by Nelder. The problem with claiming someone is an influence is that it's so incredibly hard to prove because most ideas are fluid and most ideas are just spinoffs of bigger ideas, such as what Gm545 explained. Not to mention that it's almost impossible to claim being an inspiration or a notable originator of an idea without having a ton of reliable sources in general. The unsaid thing about any given qualification for WP:NBOOK or WP:NAUTHOR is that in order to go for one of the smaller things, it's almost a given that they'd have enough WP:RS to where qualifying under a specific guideline would be a moot point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 January 2014 - So far Wikipedia is king, but a king doesn't stay a king forever, and eventually something will come along to compete with it or replace it. Hopefully, that something will not penalize authors who are not nationally and internationally famous. Thank you for your comments on this matter, and I wish Geoff Nelder much success as he continues with his writing career and his books.Joliedupre2 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The WP:NBOOK threshold is fairly simple and if even a few reliable third-party sources had done an in-depth review of this novel there likely wouldn't have been an issue. And not everything an author creates is necessarily notable enough to have its own encyclopedia article, especially an author whose own notability is somewhat tenuous. - Dravecky (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. The book simply doesn't meet any of the criteria of notability WP:BKCRIT. I'd be happy for the book to stay if it could be proven otherwise.--Graeme 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Arnott (talk • contribs)

3 January 2014 - Mr. Nelder looked at this Talk page. We are having a final discussion. I hope to return to this Talk page on either 1/4/2014 or 1/5/2014 with the results of our discussion. Please give us the courtesy of leaving ARIA alone until I return to this page. Thank you. Joliedupre2 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there's really not much that Nelder can do to keep this other than try to get various media outlets to review the book. If he could manage to get say, some quick interviews on sites such as Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Variety, Tor.com, and the like, then that would help greatly- as would reviews from all of those websites. Other than that, there's not much that can be done. The AfD has been extended until about 1/8, but I'll be honest when I say that the chances of this staying are fairly slim. At that point it's really just better for you to just let the article go. Cut your losses and quietly wait for the series to gain more reviews. I'll be very honest in saying that getting upset at Wikipedia for its strict guidelines isn't going to solve anything. Even getting upset at the people who came onto Wikipedia and caused the need for such strict guidelines won't really solve anything. They were jerks but it happened and what came of it is what came of it. It's a shame that many authors and series won't pass notability guidelines, but it happens and the only thing to do is to very calmly accept that a series falls short and move on. Try to gain more coverage so that in the future you can possibly re-create the article, but for right now it's just better to let it go. I will say that since you are obviously editing with a serious conflict of interest, that it would be better if you got someone else to look at the sources to verify how useful they might be. You can obviously still edit with a COI, but the problem is that in many cases people not only see more notability than there might be but they also take things personally when there wasn't any personal slight meant. It's not the end of the world that the ARIA article gets deleted and it doesn't mean that Nelder is never going to get any sort of media attention ever again. However getting upset at an AfD, saying that Wikipedia will eventually fall because it won't make a special exception for an author you personally like (which is essentially what you're saying), and so on... that doesn't help you any. The bottom line is that this series fails our guidelines for books. As someone who has been editing and creating book articles for a few years now, I can honestly say that this book series doesn't pass. It'd be nice if we could otherwise keep it, but we can't- and we can't make exceptions for anyone. Either everyone follows the same rules or nobody follows the rules. It'd be incredibly unfair if we were to keep this article on weak sourcing, then turn around and tell another author that their page has to be deleted. That's not how this works and honestly, is that how Nelder wants to keep this article? By asking for special treatment rather than waiting and working for the sources over time? This book just doesn't pass notability guidelines right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 January 2013 - Tokyo Girl wrote: "So far my biggest issue is that while I am finding sources, there is a problem of the author's association with some of the sites. By this I mean that Nelder is a member of the British Fantasy Society, which makes the award and review from them somewhat WP:PRIMARY since it's ultimately in their best interest to write good reviews for their members and give them awards."

From Geoff Nelder: "The BFS merely reported that ARIA had won the Preditors & Editors Readers Poll for best science fiction novel of 2012. P&E has no connection with the BFS and you'd think this award, in itself, would count towards notability."

From Jolie du Pre: I made it clear, when I first edited the ARIA page, that the P&E award was on its own. Some mysterious person came along and associated the P&E award with BFS, along with removing entire sections of the ARIA page, specifically the Settings section and the History section. Today, I corrected the error the person made regarding the P&E award.Joliedupre2 (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 January 2013 - From Geoff Nelder: "Tokyo Girl mentions I should get a review from Library Thing, but Compulsive Reader is bigger and they deleted the review link from that! http://www.compulsivereader.com/2012/11/17/a-review-of-aria-left-luggage-by-geoff-nelder/ "Joliedupre2 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, I said you should get a review from the Library Journal, which is a company that was founded in the late 1800s by that runs reviews but also covers various things in the book world. ([33]) It's a trade paper, but a very well respected one, as the same company that currently owns it also owns the Horn Book Guide, which is considered to be one of the best trade review outlets out there. (LJ was also founded by the guy that created the Dewey Decimal system, but I digress.) Library Thing is a dramatically different type of website. They are not the same thing and the difference between the two is very, very dramatic in scale when it comes to reviews. The reviews from the Library Journal are run through an editorial board and are written by staff specifically hired by the company, whereas LibraryThing is a social website where anyone can sign up and anyone can submit a review without any editorial oversight. There is a huge, huge difference there. In any case, Compulsive Reader is a book review blog and I believe that I've already elaborated on why most blogs are unusable. Compulsive Reader isn't one of the few blogs that would be considered usable as a reliable source. Popularity or size of a blog does not guarantee that it is considered a reliable source. I mean, Dear Author is a much larger site than Compulsive Reader and is far more popular, but it isn't considered to be a reliable source either because of the problems prevalent with blog and blog-type sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 January 2013 - To Tokyo Girl, and to everyone else, I've relayed your information to Nelder. Tokyo Girl, you're absolutely right. It is NOT the end of the world that the ARIA article gets deleted, and it doesn't mean that Nelder is never going to get any sort of media attention ever again. Nelder will eventually become well known for the work he's done and will continue to do. In closing, I refer to Wikipedia on a daily basis. I've seen information listed at Wikipedia that was questionable, but I never bothered reporting it. That changes TODAY. Specifically, if I ever run across another book that does not seem "notable" to me, I'll report it. Since Nelder's book is going to be removed for not being "notable," every other book that exists in Wikipedia that is not "notable" should be removed, as well. Thanks for your time and for your comments, and enjoy your 2014.Joliedupre2 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 January 2013 - With respect, ARIA was thought worthy to add to the wikipedia database not because it is a book, or that it won an award but because it is the only work of fiction or film that I know of that uses the concept of infectious amnesia. It's this use that spurred notable authors such as Mike Resnick, Robert J Sawyer, Charles Stross, Brad Lineweaver and Jon Courtenay Weaver to refer to the work as original, 'fascinating project', and to endorse it. The award ought to have more clout than is supposed here because ARIA: Left Luggage won the Preditors & Editors Award for best science fiction novel of 2012 with many hundreds of readers voting - not just a handful of people that judge many other awards (not that I'm dissing those in any way). The P&E is run indepently of any organisation or publisher by lawyer David Kuzminski and not as mentioned in comments above by the British Fantasy Society who reported the win. I know that Herpes Simplex can be infectious (but not by everyone with no immunity) and can affect memory, but not by every sufferer and not as a retrograde amnesia as in ARIA. It is a real shame that Wikipedia is reducing its information set by removing the only work in the world using an original premise of retrograde infectious amnesia. It means that future researchers, readers and writers will have to seek elsewhere to find it and hence wiki has lost its status as a comprehensive database. I urge you to reconsider this decision not for me but for the community that wikipedia has done well to serve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffnelder (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already elaborated on this already, but coming up with a new idea doesn't always guarantee notability. The idea has to gain coverage, become widely used, and have you cited as the inspiration for this specific concept. Just coming up with something one day doesn't guarantee notability. It could be the coolest idea ever, but without coverage it's pretty much just something you came up with one day. The thing about revolutionary ideas is that they're only really considered to be revolutionary when they gain coverage. Otherwise they're just something someone came up with one day. Now as far as those authors go, their opinions could help show notability if they wrote reviews and papers about the book/series, but you might run into issues if they're your friends. That brings up issues of a conflict of interest, as they would be emotionally invested in seeing you succeed. A way to get around that would of course be for them to submit the reviews to reliable sources (hint hint- many newspapers love to post reviews by successful authors) as that would provide an editorial board that would help smooth over COI concerns. The bottom line is that this all boils down to coverage in reliable sources, which isn't really out there right now. You can argue that you came up with an interesting new idea, but we would still need coverage to show that this idea is notable. We lack that. However since you are reading this Mr Nelder, I'll blatantly say it: get the authors that have complimented your work to write reviews for the book and publish them in places that have an editorial board. Of course don't have them say outright that it's for the purpose of saving your series' article, but considering how well-known some of the names are, many of the various websites out there would love to post their reviews. Tor.com would probably do it, as would maybe the New York Times or the Guardian. Bleeding Cool might do it as well. SF Crowsnest is also a good option, as is Locus Online and the SF Site. Heck, even the RT would be likely to publish their reviews, although they could probably easily get a better site than them. Get the authors to write the reviews and post them. If you know anyone at any of the websites or papers I've mentioned, ask them to review and cover your book. You're not going to keep this article without those sources. I can't stress that enough, as your energy would be best spent hitting those outlets up for coverage. If we don't have the sources then all we have is a series that just doesn't have enough coverage to merit its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed the concept with those authors but I've not imposed on their time to actually read ARIA although many other non-author reviewers have done so. I feel awkward in asking them but maybe I should. It's a problem all authors from small press have. I know that 'notable' authors are inundated with requests to read novels and extracts from unknowns and in general they refuse, with the main exceptions being authors from their own publishing houses. It seems odd, and not just to me, that a published novel containing original idea will not be permitted to be lodged in Wikipedia unless its author is sufficiently well-known to have his or her work endorsed by the famous. An idea is an idea no matter who knows about it. Pity wikipedia is only going to be a source of and for the well-known. Incidentally, Jolie Du Pre does not know me personally and stopped working for my publisher some time ago. I would have thought the COI wouldn't apply to her. LL-Publications tell me they did send copies of ARIA to the National Libraries as required legal deposits but that they received no receipt even though the posting was tracked. They are resending. It will take time to persuade notable authors to read and review ARIA: Left Luggage. Will the page have a stay of execution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffnelder (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Sorry. One idea for fans is start a Wikia website, where it it can expanded free of the draconian rules of the Wikipedia, which are very limiting. Link to the Wikia site from the author's Wikipedia external links section or use ((wikia)). -- GreenC 06:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 January 2014 - The survival of the ARIA (Novel) Wikipedia page is likely doomed. However, Green's suggestion of creating a Wikia page is interesting. I read both Wikipedia pages AND Wikia pages when I search the Web, and there are millions and millions of other people who do the same. Wikia pages often receive as much Google juice as Wikipedia pages, and when it comes to search engines Google is King. Therefore, when readers type in either Geoff Nelder or Alien Retrograde Infectious Amnesia, if a Wikia page were created for Geoff, assuming the Wikipedia page has been deleted, the Wikia page would probably be the first entry to pop up. That entry would include everything that the Wikipedia page includes now, plus everything that was deleted by the mysterious Wikipedia user. Something to think about, Geoff. Thank you, Green. Joliedupre2 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, deals with what you people are doing, here, in deleting this article. You are unpaid jobsworth Nazis, and I say that advisedly, and not as an insult, but a statement of fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.189.7 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We're just following orders!" is the same defence used by Hitler's troops as they massacred millions during World War 2.

The Internet is meant to be about connecting humanity, not applying logarithms to rule our thoughts and actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.189.7 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is hopefully going to be my only statement here, but as a human being, a religious studies scholar, as someone who has many Jewish friends, and as someone who has deeply considered (and is still considering) converting to Judaism, I can't tell you how overwhelmingly offensive it is that you are comparing the genocide of hundreds of thousands of human beings and the torture and oppression of millions upon billions of Jewish people to someone getting an article deleted on Wikipedia. Seriously, please do not make associations like this again. Someone losing an article due to non-notability is not the same thing as someone gassing a person to death for their religious beliefs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If those closest to the subject of the article are unable to find the references necessary to establish the subject's notability, then it is apparent to me that the article exists only as a misguided attempt to achieve the desired level of notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 November 2013. No one is trying to increase notability of the ARIA Trilogy as much as trying to preserve its entry as the only fiction to use infectious amnesia as a premise. Researchers need such information and if they don't find it here then wikipedia is not working. I have asked some notable authors to consider reviewing ARIA but as I said earlier they lead hectic lives and are indundated by small press authors seeking reviews. Bear in mind too that the ARIA trilogy is only part way through its publication. Part 3 is being edited as we speak. Seems rather previous to kill the entry before the public and literati have had a chance to consider it. Geoff Nelder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffnelder (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The WP:COI here is a joke!, That aside this article does indeed fail WP:NBOOK, I'd suggest the above & take this to wikia. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:46, 6 January 2014 (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. No compelling, policy backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. Our requirements for notability here are not met by a subject being well known in a particular community; this is a world-wide encyclopedia not a fansite. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Temple Rodrigue[edit]

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

Not a single one of her books are in more than 8 libraries according to worldcat, but notable children';s book of the present century would have at the very least several hundred. There are no reliable 3rd party reviews given.

This was accepted from AfC, which I find incredible. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this author is notable as her works have deemed a Top Seller by Disney D23. Although this author may not be notable to the overall community, in the Disney community she is known.FirstDrop87 (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what Wikia is for. I see no evidence she passes wp:AUTHOR or that it's even close. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a Disney author considered a Disney top seller by the Disney fan club. Stalwart111 02:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete - From what I know of this author, she is equally as notable within the Disney community as the author Ridley Pearson doing similar disney works. As an atendee at many Disney events, I can verify she was guest speaker at many of these events. In addition I know she was Top Seller at 2011 and 2013 Disney D23 and 2011 and 2013 Los Angeles Times Festival of Books. I agree this author may not be as notable within the overall community, but to the Disney community she is well known and should remain in wiki. Her titles are in paperback and ebook, which explains her books not being in very many libraries, they rarely buy and stock paperback. The article does not appear to violate any of the Reasons for deletion in the Wiki Deletion policy, and should remain intact. Boatguy1 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking out the MANY primary, tertiary, duplicate, passing mention and broken references, we're left with a few news articles. Not even close enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. Gm545 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable author as far as I can tell, per WP:NBOOK. -- GreenC 21:22, 5 January 2014 (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 am deleting and recreating as a redirect to Phantasy Star#Spin-offs where it is mentioned as a valid search term ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasy Star II Text Adventures[edit]

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

Just like previous games, there isn't enough development and reception to consider this article notable. Lucia Black (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2014 (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/2014 January 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lucia Black, I think it would be fair to roll all these up into one. Same as my prior comments, it's a problem with the references. The subject doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article and the lack of reliable sources back this up. This kind of article is more appropriate on Wikia. Gm545 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're all distinctly different games, ~~so they really should be kept separate.~~ so they should all have separate AFD discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: what do you mean by "separate". in their own articles or described separately as merged? Although distinct games, a large number of games that aren't notable are also clumped together. Here in this instance, their all spin offs, more respectively, their all spin offs of Phantasy Star and Phantasy Star II.Lucia Black (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression the above person was in favor of merging the discussions for Phantasy Star Adventure, Phantasy Star Gaiden, Phantasy Star II Text Adventures, correct? They're of the same series, but from different consoles and genre. I just thought they should have their separate AFD discussions. I assume you feel the same, since that is the way you nominated them yourself... Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were voting. my mistake. i suppose we should keep them separate, although it would be great if we could rack them up together. i'm not so sure if its allowed to advertise the other AfD's that have similar complaints and similar situation.Lucia Black (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, that's not what I was trying to do. I've struck my comment and reworded it for clarity. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's perfectly reasonable to WP:BUNDLE if warranted. I think it would be warranted in this case as they're all spin-offs of the same game series. If not, fair enough. Gm545 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I personally sought sources for all three of these Phantasy Star articles and have found nothing to use. Not to brag, but I am fairly decent at sourcing rather obscure subjects. As for bundling, it's safer to do them separately so as if one article is shown to be notable, the AfD doesn't fail. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (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 won't comment on the intention behind Lucia's nom or ChrisGualteri's opposing view (they've been imposed an IBAN since the start of the AfD); I find Gm545's suggestion appropriate (I will userfy upon request) and have faith that if NARH couldn't find sources establishing independent notability, then this at best merits a mention in Phantasy Star's article; I find consensus to delete but I'll use my discretion to recreate and redirect as a valid search term. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasy Star Gaiden[edit]

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

I've looked and there is simply not enough development or reception information to make this notable. All sources used here are based off in-game screenshots. Lucia Black (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2014 (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/2014 January 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cited Famitsu, Gamez, Dengeki and the Japanese Pocketgamer site which hosts a basic guide. There is likely plenty of coverage in period magazines and additional info not yet found. Though I think the greatly improved coverage is a big step in the right direction. I am also working on this article, including prior to its nomination. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've said things in the past regarding having such sources, and you've never provided when it came to prove what you've stated.Lucia Black (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The description in Phantasy Star is sufficient. Most of the references just mention it in passing. If you want to work on it, I'd suggest a move to userspace or WP:Incubate until it's ready for prime-time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm545 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I personally sought sources for all three of these Phantasy Star articles and have found nothing to use. Not to brag, but I am fairly decent at sourcing rather obscure subjects. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2014 (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 won't comment on the intention behind Lucia's nom or ChrisGualteri's opposing view (they've been imposed an IBAN since the start of the AfD); I have faith that if NARH couldn't find sources establishing independent notability, then this at best merits a mention in Phantasy Star's article; I find consensus to delete but I'll use my discretion to recreate and redirect as a valid search term. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasy Star Adventure[edit]

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

There is simply not enough reception or development information (i've looked) to consider this article notible. Lucia Black (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2014 (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/2014 January 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in Phantasy Star. The game appears to be not notable enough for its own entry. The references provided simply mention the game in passing or (in the case of Moby Games) appears to be a compendium/tertiary source. Gm545 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite being rather short, I've found four sources already and the review from the French Legendra source gives more details on the function and work and combined with the other review provides with enough verifiable opinion and statements of fact to suggest that independent it is part of a notable franchise. I'm not expecting it to hit GA until someone can pull up the Japanese sources from places like Dengeki or Famitsu, but I've been doing that with Gaiden and I'm certain their are quite a few in the native language - the game was never released outside of Japan after all. It used to look like [34], but I've since improved it quite a bit and without much hard work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I took a look at the additional sources but, as you mentioned, they're in French and Japanese, except for that fan review which is by definition not a good source. If there aren't any significant English-language reviews, I'd suggest it's not notable enough for inclusion in the English-language Wikipedia. Gm545 (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Agreed, withdrawing comment. Gm545 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine per WP:NOENG and Wikipedia is not Angelo centric. Any topic can exist, provided the coverage meets N or GNG, is acceptable and RPGFan is acceptable for reviews for gaming. I got other Japanese sources, but I want the actual Japanese mag sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really, the english wikipedia all has to do is provide any course from anywhere (as long as reliable) in english. not that we need english sources. so that's acceptable. However, with such few reviews, it may not be enough to justify it. But regardless, i'm simply trying to be "neutral" here. alternate language reviews IS acceptable.Lucia Black (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please stop mentioning the fact that the franchise is notable. that is not part of the discussion and does not help your case. Its like claiming the manga adaptation of Legend of Bardok is independently notable simply because the franchise is notable. You lose credibility when you make such reasoning.Lucia Black (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I personally sought sources for all three of these Phantasy Star articles and have found nothing to use. Not to brag, but I am fairly decent at sourcing rather obscure subjects. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2014 (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. GB fan 16:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corwin Thompson[edit]

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

Just a very vague, unsourced claim he was "prominent in the lumber industry in Chicago". Not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just one reference to what appears to be an obituary article. No other evidence of WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm545 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a bit of searching, I can't find any reliable sources indicating notability. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2014 (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. GB fan 16:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JDTV (Johor Darul Takzim F.C.)[edit]

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

Non notable online only tv channel covering one football club. No indication of WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JDTV exists but that's about it. There is no evidence of independent coverage to indicate notability. Gm545 (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MUTV or Chelsea TV this isn't; it's not even on par with a cable access station. Average video portal on site of average football team. Nate • (chatter) 10:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Thanks for drop by and comment. JDTV (Johor Darul Takzim F.C.) is a web-based TV that operated by Malaysia Super League club; Johor Darul Takzim F.C.. It is still new so they wont put in the cable-access station but they will someday because the club has transform into profesional club in this 2 years. so i hope you will not delete it. somehow i am sure someone will expand the articles. Tq bro. MeenEunos10 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2014

Comment - Nobody is doubting that the web channel exists, the problem is that there is no indication that it has received any coverage in significant reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. The fact that they may or may not turn it into a proper broadcast telvevision channel does not make it notable now as per WP:CRYSTAL. What you need to provide are sources that show that the TV channel itself has received coverage in other media, simply because it is connected to a notable club does not make it notable in itself. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability at all. Giant Snowman 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough independent coverage. However, a redirect to the club's article is also an option. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:59, 8 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 20:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lishman's underground house[edit]

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

No evidence of importance for the house. ; the content is already in the article on the person, and the present title would not even be a useful redirect DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same content already in the person's main article. Gm545 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I created this article is that the focus of the Bill Lishman main article is on his activities as an inventor, his exploration of bird flight, etc. The house is of interest to a completely different community, as it is a specimen of unorthodox individualized approach to architecture that sometimes goes under the name of "visionary environments". While I agree that the present article does not provide much useful contents, I would contend that the stub has a purpose, as it supplies appropriate categorization, connects to other articles on similar subjects and creates good potential for further expansion, and I request that it should not be deleted. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even stubs need to adhere to rule WP:42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm545 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is almost duplicated at Bill Lishman. Until secondary sources cover the house in depth (no pun intended) it doesn't pass notability standards. Even then what is probably notable is the concept of an Underground house, not any individual structure. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please make some constructive suggestions as to what can be added in order to make it possible to keep the article as a stub? Just references to secondary sources?

That it is "duplicated" from Bill Lishman is not an argument. Much better to remove that subsection in Bill Lishman and keep a separate article that connects to other articles on similar subjects and establishes a meaningful database structure.

It's a strange idea that individual underground buildings cannot be notable. Can ordinary buildings be notable? There are hundreds of articles on individual buildings on Wikipedia. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. When secondary sources say something substantial about the house then it would be considered notable on WP. The mere facts that a building has a cool owner/builder and is underground do not make it notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This is a reasonable position, and I will try to look for relevant sources. It is counterproductive, however, to delete the stub. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability. I have prodded Bill Lishman, also for lack of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Whattttt?????? Who is notable then? Only American TV celebrities? InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bill Lishman as there doesn't seem to be individual notability with this house. I've un-prodded the Lishman article as The Star articles about that person are in-depth and significant.--Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2014 (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. GB fan 16:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Ruas[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other web sources suggest this article fails WP:NMMA, only 1 UFC fight.Gm545 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above reasons.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Reid is clearly notable due to his multiple appearances in the British media, irrespective of his career in MMA. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Reid (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:KICK. Jakejr (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. Agreed, doesn't meet WP:NMMA notability guidelines.Gm545 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point Michig. Gm545 (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A deletion rationale based on WP:NMMA is completely missing the point. Like it or not Reid is more famous than any other MMA fighter in Britain, appears regularly on television, and passes WP:GNG by a mile. He won Celebrity Big Brother for heaven's sake. Here's the coverage of him from one major British newspaper alone: [35]. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep he's a celebrity in the UK. I had the Guardian reference but I also did searches at the BBC [36] and the Telegraph [37]. He's also in the tabloids/gossip magazines practically every day, I know they don't count as RS but this guy is actually really famous. Acb314 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Like it or not, Reid is a big celebrity in the UK, and that has nothing to do with his MMA career and everything to do with his personal life and TV appearances (which are amply and frequently covered in the media), so WP:NMMA really doesn't apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep These days he's a celebrity who sometimes fights, not a fighter. Won Celebrity Big Brother which should be enough on its own even if there weren't reliable sources presented above. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (rather reluctantly...). Definitely notable by Wikipedia standards (despite my personal opinions about such 'celebrities'...). Peridon (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Dietz[edit]

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

MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No top-tier fights.Gm545 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEC is top tier even though they are defunct so he has two.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 2 top tier fights out of a required 3 for WP:MMANOT and both were loses. Non-notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2014 (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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiego Lima[edit]

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

Non notable MMA fighter with no top tier fights.Jakejr (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, fails WP:NMMA.Gm545 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 20:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Shroud of Gaia[edit]

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

Article with a heavily promotional tone, about a band with no particularly strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and relying almost exclusively on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. (The only non-primary source, in fact, is an event listing on a smalltown radio station's local community calendar, so even that reference still fails to pass the "substantial coverage" test.) I would actually have speedied or prodded this instead of taking it here — it's really, truly that bad — but there's already a declined prod lurking in the article's edit history. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if their notability claim and/or the quality of referencing can be improved upon, but as written, this simply is not a keepable article in its current state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Additionally, that one independent reference fails WP:GNG due to only mentioning the artist in passing. Gm545 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any evidence that these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND or the WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:53, 2 January 2014 (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 Nyles Lannon and merge the album articles there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyles Lannon[edit]

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

I just don't see this folk musician (or the two albums he released, listed below) as notable. Delete all. --Nlu (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Astronomy for Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete all. Fails WP:GNG. Only primary sources found. Gm545 (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Nyles Lannon article and merge the album articles into it. There's sufficient coverage readily available despite the current unavailability of Google News Archive, e.g. Allmusic, Allmusic, AV Club, Paste, MTV (which also states that the LA Times considered his album Pressure one of the best pop albums of the year), East Bay Express, CMJ New Music Report, and David Keenan's book England's Hidden Reverse. That's not an exhaustive list of coverage - following WP:BEFORE could have avoided the need for this discussion. --Michig (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These independent label musicians often get a very short spurt of coverage from multiple sources — and then die away as far as mainstream coverage is concerned. WP:15M applies, I believe. --Nlu (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the cites mentioned by Michig and ones that I've added to the article, you will find coverage from reliable sources over a span of years, so don't see how WP:15M applies. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. On further thought, I think a problem with the "keep" argument that Michig is making is this: these lesser-known, independent-label musicians are effectively analogous to minor league athletes, who actually likely have hundreds more mainstream references in newspapers, TV, radio, &c. references, not only locally, but in national sources. Yet, a consensus judgment call has been made that not only are they not notable just based on those references, but they are presumptively not notable unless they make it to the majors, except in the cases of major coverage despite the not making it to the majors. WP:NMUSIC's "per se notable" criteria effectively serves as a "make it to the majors" analog, and while I consider them somewhat over inclusive, I'm not going to quibble with the consensus there. Yet when someone/some group doesn't make it on those criteria, I question how, in particular when the person/group does not draw coverage outside music publications, whether WP:GNG can be at all invoked. I'd consider them presumptively non-notable unless they make it to one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. --Nlu (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These boilerplate responses suggest that as little thought has gone into them as the original nominations. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These allegations of boilerplate responses suggest that as little logical thought has gone into thinking about whether this response was valid. Again, search results yield nothing but "trade links" as far as I can see. No general notability. Equivalent to minor leaguer, if that. --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cut and pasted the exact same response into several AfDs, neither one dealing with the subject in question - pretty much the definition of boilerplate responses. Your evaluation of the sources is nonsense. --Michig (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Nyles Lannon article and merge the album articles, as Michig suggests, as they aren't much more than stubs. Article did not have cites when AfD'd, but I've added twelve, which I think demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nyles Lannon and merge the album articles there. The NL article now has plenty of refs to establish notability - good work guys! — sparklism ^hey! 11:30, 10 January 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nahru Lampkin Bongo Man[edit]

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

I just don't see this street performer as notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm with Nlu as it doesn't seem notable enough but he's a damn sight more notable than most of the AfDs around here. He's got three different newspapers that have written an article about him. I'm on the fence with this one. Gm545 (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have tidied up the article, regularizing the references and converting the table to prose. I also found and added several additional references. He seems clearly notable. If kept, the article title should be changed to Nahru Lampkin with a redirect from Bongo Man. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MelanieN has done a terrific job cleaning this up!LM2000 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn, and no outstanding delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egerton Leigh (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The dab page has just two redlinked non-primary topic entries which are adequately listed in Leigh baronets. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, links go nowhere. What's the point of this page? Gm545 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair enough, withdrawing. Gm545 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it just needed clean up One article (primary topic) and 2 entries which meet MOS:DABMENTION. It's a shame it wasn't checked if the 2nd and 3rd baronets met MOS:DABMENTION before it was nominated/commented on. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame you didn't bother to read my one sentence nomination, wherein it is acknowledged that they are listed somewhere. However, if you check Egerton Leigh, you'll see that I've replaced the hatnote with a link to the baronets article, making this page entirely superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your hatnote means looking for a while through the Leigh baronets page, and doesn't even make it clear if one, two or ten of this name can be found in the article. The dab links directly to the correct section, makes it much easier to find info and makes it far less likely that someone could confuse the 1st and 2nd Baronets. Even if the hatnote was improved, this is still a dab with tree entries which are all valid. Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. The changes are better than my solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2014 (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. Among the policy-based !votes, the nomination was regarding concerns about notability. User:Peshrout stated how the article had been expanded. The !vote by User:Sionk countered the concerns regarding the topic's notability, and the nominator later commented that they feel notability has been established in the article. The comment by User:Kaldari is policy based, but is a comment, rather than an !vote. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Nussbaum[edit]

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

I do not see anything here to indicate notability. No works in major museum collections, no prizes. Accepted from AfC nevertheless DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I created the page and I understood that a collaborator was going to add some images of the public art. I admire the sculpture at the Montclair Bay Street Station every day, and more than a thousand people walk by it each day. Somerville station has similar exposure. Please leave the page up for a month and let us see if we can convince you of this artist's interest. Peshrout —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: With the help of Nussbaum, the entry now is updated with more public works, and a list of honors. Images to follow after the holidays if the entry remains. Peshrout —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artwork just existing and having people see it isn't enough. Lots of artists have made gates or have permanent installations. Gm545 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A public artist like Tom Nussbaum ought to be searchable. It would be premature to delete the entry at this time, although it needs more development. jmh39 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh39 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If someone saw public art by Tom Nussbaum and wanted to find more information about it, a Wikipedia page would be the fastest and easiest way to learn more. The point of Wikipedia is for the public to get information about a given topic or person. Maddylion22 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that having a useful source of information about an established and public artist is important. What benefit is there to removing this article?. Wikipedia is a destination for people looking to learn more about a subject, so why reduce the amount of information available here? TimS4DDP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the above accounts appear to be single-purpose sockpuppets. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peshrout: Whether or not they have a public art installation is irrelevant here. In order for the article to be kept, it should demonstrate how Tom Nussbaum meets at least one of the following four criteria (giving specific examples):

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

Right now, it appears that the subject meets none of these criteria, so it is likely the article will be deleted. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an obvious 'keep', based on the ample news coverage listed, even if you discount the very occasional gallery publication (some of the aryicles are transcribed on the artist's website and I've no reason to doubt many of them are substantially about Nussbaum and his work). Quite evidently an artist who has been producing successfully over a period of several decades. Meets general notability criteria. All the same, article needs clean up and some inline citations would be useful. The probable sockpuppetry above indicates the article might need close monitoring for over enthusiastic promotion! Sionk (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article now shows notability. I would not have nominated it in its present condition--I think my nomination brought forth a great improvement, which is the ideal result of an afd. (tho not its primary purpose) DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalu Yala[edit]

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

not yet notable--it's essentially PR. When it does get built, that might be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that only the internship program exists at the moment and they're heavily promoting it. Gm545 (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: I closed this as "delete" but am relisting it after an editor submitted what appear to be relevant sources on my talk page. Sandstein 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Whether built or not, the article satisfies WP:GNG. - Altenmann >t 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - but needs updating with most recent articles- The Next Web: http://thenextweb.com/la/2014/01/28/heart-panamanian-jungle-startup-village-grows/ CNN en Espanol- http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/spanish/2014/01/11/cnnee-aventurero-reportero-ted-adventure.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fkaluyalainternships.com%2F Fusion: http://fusion.net/american_dream/story/young-people-building-worlds-sustainable-community-panama-324448 Mission.tv: http://mission.tv/features/kalu-yala-a-sustainable-jungle-settlement-for-entrepreneurs.html Atlanta Business Chronicle: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0yclteq0wdwlcdf/Atlanta%20Business%20Chronicle%20Kalu%20Yala%20Article.pdf ULoop: http://osu.uloop.com/news/view.php/104693/a-few-months-in-panama-an-overview-of-the-kalu-yala-entrepreneurial-internship-program Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-slavin/the-world-of-kalu-yala_b_1415934.html Under30Ceo: http://under30ceo.com/town-2-0-leader-2-0-lessons-entrepreneurship-jimmy-stice/ FSView: http://www.fsunews.com/article/20130328/FSVIEW0101/130327037/Student-works-sustain-agriculture-Panama Cavalier Daily: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2013/09/a-summer-off-the-grid UGAzine: http://georgiaugazine.com/changing-the-world-with-kalu-yala-2/ The Collegian: http://thecollegianur.com/2013/09/22/summer-aboad-in-the-kalu-yala-valley/36843/ Tiger News: http://thetigernews.com/news.php?aid=8761&sid=1 The Silhouette: http://www.thesil.ca/insideout-embracing-both-fear-and-failure-at-kalu-yala?fb_action_ids=10153332829755370&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210153332829755370%22%3A310183902455569%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210153332829755370%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map The Daily Reveille: http://www.lsureveille.com/news/student-learns-about-sustainability-in-panama-jungle/article_11fcff3c-36c2-11e3-9519-001a4bcf6878.html The State Press: http://www.statepress.com/2013/09/11/student-internship-at-sustainable-community-provides-wealth-of-opportunity/184.77.48.222 (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG, per:

Also, the topic has received a lot of coverage in student newspapers. Additional examples include:

Additionally, there's this article, but I'm unsure about the source's reliability:

Mashable

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Ordinarily, only two relistings are performed, but in light of new sources, relisting again.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2014 (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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanest Man Contest[edit]

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

Nothing in the list of releases by this group suggests that it is sufficiently notable. Delete. (If I had enough energy right now, I would probably also nominate the record labels that handled their releases as nonnotable themselves, but that would then probably call for deleting other groups that those labels handled. That seems to be too much of an undertaking at the moment.) --Nlu (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading WP:BAND it appears to pass 1 and 5. If the labels were successfully deleted, as mentioned above, then 5 presumably would go away. But I think all the labels are probably defensible, though the articles need all need work. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did they win anything? Did they sell anything in great numbers? Have they had anything published about them besides trade mag reviews? What differentiates them from the millions of other indie artists? The bar for WP:MUSICBIO is quite high: Grammys, TV performances, gold records, top of the charts, major label (or "important" indie label) releases. Gm545 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple non-trivial RS. 78.19.9.121 (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2014 (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. Participation has been minimal, but there seems to be no clear consensus on the inherently subjective question of whether this person meets the notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kline[edit]

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

No works of art in permanent collections of major museums, which is the usual standard for notability of visual artists. (Accepted from AfC, like my other AfD nominations today) DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from Wikipedia's page on Visual arts: The visual arts are art forms that create works that are primarily visual in nature, such as ceramics, drawing, painting, sculpture, printmaking, design, crafts, photography, video, filmmaking and architecture. These definitions should not be taken too strictly as many artistic disciplines (performing arts, conceptual art, textile arts) involve aspects of the visual arts as well as arts of other types. Also included within the visual arts[1] are the applied arts[2] such as industrial design, graphic design, fashion design, interior design and decorative art.[3] The current usage of the term "visual arts" includes fine art as well as the applied, decorative arts and crafts.... Artist Stephen Kline is best known for his inventive artistic techniques and his pro bono design work which has generated over $10,000,000 for arts programs. Although artist Stephen Kline is generally know as a painter, he has several disciplines and noted artistic accomplishments. Kline invented and established a form of drawing called "lines of language". In this technique, Kline draws an image using only words written over and over. He has collectors in every US state and in over 20 different countries (verifiable). Photographically, Kline invented and established "Panaographics", a system of singular 35mm photographic frames shot in sequence to form a larger image (verifiable). Eighteen years ago, Kline was selected from an open competition sponsored in conjunction with the Hillsborough Arts Council to design the "Florida State of the Arts" license plate (verifiable). Kline's art plate continues to generate funds for arts programs in Florida and is seen throughout the US.Paintu12 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the presence of some seemingly reliable sources, the subject appears to fail WP:ARTIST on any of the four points. No major works or acclaim/attention. Gm545 (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Creative professionals: Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: the subject has notable accomplishments WP:ARTIST for all four points.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. ~ Artist Kline is a pioneering Multimedia Photographer/Artist, commissioned by 27 Fortune 500 Corporations. Notable collaborators include: Isaac Asimov - Mannheim Steamroller - Edie Adams - C. W. McCall. Multimedia Art presentations: Carnegie Hall - Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre, Theater-in-the-round Spokane World’s Fair. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. ~ Although artist Stephen Kline is generally know as a painter, he has several disciplines and noted artistic accomplishments. Kline invented and established a form of drawing called "lines of language". In this technique, Kline draws an image using only words written over and over. He has collectors in every US state and in over 20 different countries (verifiable). Photographically, Kline invented and established "Panaographics", a system of singular 35mm photographic frames shot in sequence to form a larger image (verifiable). The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ~ Artist Stephen Kline is best known for his inventive artistic techniques and his pro bono design work which has generated over $10,000,000 for arts programs to help other artists ~ arguably as important for the art world as anything else he could have done. Kline was selected from an open art competition sponsored in conjunction with the Hillsborough Arts Council to design the "Florida State of the Arts" license plate (verifiable). The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. ~ Major museum exibitions: the Tenth Midwest Biennial at the Joslyn Museum. 1987 New Jersey Arts Annual. It was in this period when he began combining his painting and photography into one medium. The 1994 Annual Tallahassee International juried Competition "lines of language" painting. All museum catalogs available for viewing. 173.168.0.49 (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He only needs to meet one criterion to make it in. I'd be happy to change my mind if you can give us one example backed up by WP:RS. The article as it is currently written seems to give a fairly un-notable career without any peer acclaim or major permanent works (companies buying your art doesn't count, they do that by the bucketload - we're talking reputable art institutions). The exception would be the street demonstrations, but that would fail WP:ONEEVENT, and the demonstrations themselves might be the subject of an article, probably more appropriate for a Wikinews article though. Gm545 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Information. The Florida State of the Arts license plate is a permanent commissioned work of art. The Florida Arts License Plate Program was created by the Florida State Legislature in 1994. The art was selected by an elite statewide panel of judges and the arts councils of every Florida county would contribute to the peer group you are looking for. His "Arts for the Road" was purchased by over 3,500,000 individual Floridians. Kline's art has generated over $10,000,000 for the arts. Kline has three paintings in the permanent Hillsborough County public arts collection.

News quote: "For more than a decade, Broward County has ranked # 1 in the State of Florida, in sales of the Arts License Plate. This revenue-building "State of the Arts"License Plate Program has delivered more than $1.3 million in revenue to the County. The arts tag fund has been a valuable resource used, among other things, to help plan and develop Florida's first affordable live/work housing projects for artists, Sailboat Bend Artists' Lofts, and is earmarked for a second live/work space in Broward County. The Florida Arts License Plate Program was created by the Legislature in 1994. Funds collected through the sale of these specialty plates are distributed to the counties where the plates are sold and are used to support arts organizations, programs, and activities within that county. Artist Stephen Kline, whose exhibitions are displayed worldwide, designed the multi-color Florida 'State of the Arts' tag." Please refer to http://www.broadwayworld.com/fort-lauderdale/article/Broward-County-Sports-No-1-Ranking-State-of-the-Arts-Specialty-License-Plate-20131010.173.168.0.49 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I declined this article at AfC in November and it has been subsequently much improved. There are several magazine sources cited over a long period, largely pre-internet. Probably Kline's design for the Florida State of the Arts license plate can be considered to be a notable work, because it has been reported in multiple reliable sources (including one that is online). The claim that he was a pioneer of panoramic photography is also backed up by some industry sources. The article certainly needs some monitoring and clean-up, but it wouldn't be one on my hit list for deletion. Sionk (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Omony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don;t know if news stories can be told apart for pR for this profession, but for someone to be notable I'd expect major awards, which don;t seem to be present. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She appears to be doing some notable things, but agree that if any of them had received independent praise or endorsement from a notable body, that would be a lot better. She may just be grandstanding, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. --gilgongo (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First time I've heard giving the benefit of the doubt as an argument for keep! WP:NMODEL requires significant roles in multiple media, a large fan base or some kind of contribution to the field. Hosting your own TV show and being an ambassador for a minor non-profit isn't enough unfortunately. Gm545 (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gave it a crack, think it's good to go! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes our general notability guidelines. Article has been reorganized, de-adverted, expanded with more reliable secondary sources. She surely passes our guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite the WP:ILIKEIT argument, I think the additional sources confirm notability. Careful though, one of the links was malware which I had to delete. Keep your AV up to date! Gm545 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the additional sources confirm notability per WP:GNG. - tucoxn\^talk 23:23, 6 January 2014 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rion Causey[edit]

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

Non-notable. Seems to be self-promotion by WP:Single-purpose account. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His citation record looks good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sourcing for this phase of his life. On the other hand, I think his Vietnam War experiences are well-documented enough for WP:GNG: See e.g. [38] [39] [40]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was part of an allegedly controversial force but no allegation that he himself did anything wrong. No military honors. Got a PhD with a good mark. Taught and worked. Could have been anyone's life. Not notable. Gm545 (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Eppstein's links show merely that he was a member of Tiger Force, and I don't think anyone disputes that. But as far as I can tell, none of those sources really singles the subject out for special mention, so to me the question of his notability boils down to whether being a member of that group sufficiently passes WP:GNG. I think not, but perhaps only just. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear indications of notability, and WP:BLP applies Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Direct marketing. Or elsewhere as consensus may determine. Sandstein 20:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct-response marketing[edit]

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

Fork of direct marketing. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 20 December 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, Ethically ^(Yours) 15:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge to direct marketing as the term is very commonly used. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to direct marketing of which it is a subset. It will also produce a useful redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but with what? There are too many articles around this subject, including Mailshot, Mail merge#Mailshot, Advertising mail, Direct response television and Infomercial. The terms are briefly distinguished in the last (which I have been editing today, but not in relation to this AfD), although the distinction is not explained there.

"Direct response marketing" is presumably broader than just TV advertising, and covers Internet and radio advertising (and perhaps billboards, newspaper ads, text messages. The marketing is direct in the sense that the consumer makes a response directly to a company's website, telephone or mail handling office that is advertised (rather than through a third party such as a shop). "Direct marketing", on the other hand, is where companies direct their marketing communications to a narrow market segment; it does not necessarily entail a direct response (for example vouchers sent via loyalty programmes that are redeemable in-store). The word "direct" is used in different, er, directions. All marketing is of course aimed in some way at a particular market segment, so it is the narrowness that defines it as direct rather than the medium.

I also recall raising a merge proposal for Mailshot, Advertising mail and Mail merge#Mailshot, here, which also have overlapping content with these, but there has been no follow-up. What a mess. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2014 (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. This doesn't mean the article shouldn't continue to be edited, improved, and expanded etc. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pancha Ganapati[edit]

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

Festival created by a Hindu American guru, which is no notability outside his "church". No "significant coverage" by third-party references. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Mentioned by unrelated books, websites. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,This page usefully advises curious readers of articles like this one that this holiday is not a traditional Hindu holiday. Far too many online sources uncritically represent this festival as a "Hindu" holiday without notifying readers of its recent Western provenance. This page remedies that, not least because Wikipedia articles show up at the top of Google search results. That's a useful encyclopedic function. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Incubate. Seems to exist but the content is not suitable for an article entry. There has been plenty of text in it and if there is sufficient interest it can be improved. Gm545 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The great tuna jump (Sam & Cat special)[edit]

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

Upcoming and non-notable TV episode. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect Exists, but we already have a concise summary at List of Sam & Cat episodes#Episode list; at that what Nick likes to call 'specials' and 'movies' for their shows are to normal editors regular extended episodes, so an article should never be called that and we definitely need to nip the 'Sam & Cat special episodes deserve separate articles' bug in the bud before we end up with the usual festival of AfD noms filled with fanon-sourced junk years down the road. Nate • (chatter) 02:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect - A redirect could be created at The Great Tuna Jump, which is the proper name for this topic. This name is capitalized incorrectly and has an unnecessary disambiguator so there is no reason for this article to exist at all. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sufficient information at the show's episode list. No need for a separate article. Gm545 (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2014 (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) 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent marketing[edit]

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

This article seems to be a POV Fork of Marketing. It was an advertising page created by a perma-blocked user. The phrase 'Transparent Marketing' is a neologism with little significant use. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 20 December 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) 19:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an act of WP:TNT. This does appear to possibly be a real thing (e.g. [41]) but the text we have is uselessly promotional. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced. Agreed, not a "thing". Gm545 (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2014 (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) 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Marketing[edit]

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

This article is a Fork of Relationship marketing, furthermore none of the sources attached to the article actually use the phrase "Distributed Marketing", it's clear that in the opinion of the authors distributing the marketing function is just one aspect of relationship marketing. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 20 December 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) 19:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the book hits make it clear that this is not a real thing, since the first page at least just juxtaposes the two words. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided do not mention the subject. No evidence found that this exists independently. Gm545 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2014 (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, it seems to be consensus that the subject is currently not sufficiently notable to merit an article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open-E DSS V7[edit]

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

I do not see evidence for notability. The first reference is apparently a brief press release. The second , though longer, says right at the top that it's a press release. The others are from the company web site, or press releases from products it interfaces with. I recognizer the difficulty of finding sources in this area, andI usually will accept one substantial independent review, but we don;t have even that.

This was accepted at AfC ; I doubt it would have been at NPP. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 20 December 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) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability I can find here is a "Product of the Month" award from SearchStorage.de [42], which does not appear to be a particularly notable award. Company materials and press release info alone is not independent of the subject, and so there is a lack of significant coverage from such reviews. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:20, 2 January 2014 (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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yaggfu Front[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major label act, bio and review at Allmusic/The Allmusic Guide to Hip-Hop, entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music - doesn't fail GNG. --Michig (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One album on a major label doesn't pass wp:BAND - and their second wasn't on a major label. The Allmusic Bio is trivial. I can't verify the Encyclopaedia of Popular Music - I think we need an expert on this one to provide sources as I suspect they were notable (which isn't temporary) but the sources are almost 20 years old. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Notability requires sources. The Encyclopedia is a tertiary source and not appropriate for a discussion on establishing notability (WP:WPNOTRS). Allmusic alone doesn't establish significant coverage and the bio is extremely brief, sufficient for it to be a "passing mention". Nothing else significant was turned up by a search. The references in the article itself are primary/self-published. Gm545 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Some of his sources have been ignored; one other, maligned. (I've reviewed what WP:TERTIARY actually says, and am aware besides that subject-specific encyclopedias commonly contain subjective opinion & analysis. TEOPM is no more a compendium than The New Grove is.) Also Idolator [43], XXL [44], the accepted RS RapReviews [45] & contemporaneous reviews in the rap press such as DJ Mighty Mi's for The Source, Feb. 1994. 78.19.9.121 (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (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. Ged UK 12:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VeganBurg[edit]

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

promotioanl article for a 4-store chain. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its claim to notability, being the first fast food chain to be vegetarian (if verified at least), is a pretty significant first, and could establish notability on its own. Also, I found a number of sources that discuss the chain, such as this article by Ecorazzi. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG easily. Searched and all sources found on the subject are primary sources/social media or minor blog reviews. Article is written in the style of an advertisement. Gm545 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ecorazzi at least appears to be reliable though; a number of Wikipedia articles use it as a source. And while some of the other sources I found are indeed unreliable blogs, they seem to verify that the restaurant is the first vegetarian fast-food chain at least in Asia, which is a relatively strong claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there were reliable sources that stated VeganBurg was the first vegetarian fast-food chain in Asia, that MIGHT be grounds for notability. However, as you've mentioned there aren't any. As for Ecorazzi, if that did pass the reliability test, that alone wouldn't be enough to give VeganBurg sufficient widespread coverage. Gm545 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability hasn't been established via independent sources, and the article is egregiously promotional in tone. JSFarman (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2014 (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. Ged UK 12:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Zisapel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

RAD Data Communications is notable and has an article. This is just added PR for the founder of the company. There is no useful material on anything outside the company except his relatively minor charitable endeavors.

Accept for AfC , like hundreds of other promotional articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking deeper into the sources, they fail to back-up the claims in the article. The majority of the claims aren't referenced at all. Searching for independent, reliable sources on the subject failed to turn up anything significant. Gm545 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although now the claims are referenced, majority of them are primary sources either way. And yes, majority of the article is a PR as far as primary sources go.--Mishae (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2014 (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.