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. 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Kaffka[edit]

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

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

An article that is fundamentally a promotional public relations profile for an actor whose only credited parts to date have been extra or stunt double roles, which cites no reliable sources to demonstrate that he actually gets past our notability rules for actors as spelled out at WP:NACTOR — as written, the article serves only to demonstrate that he exists. The mere fact that a person has an IMDb page is not by itself a qualification that entitles a person to a Wikipedia article, because everybody who's ever worked on any film or television series at all, right down to "third assistant best boy", gets an IMDb page; rather, an article on Wikipedia has to be cited to substantive third-party media sources about him, such as books, magazine or newspaper coverage, and there's little to no evidence of such coverage even existing at the present time. To all available evidence, furthermore, it appears to have been written by his own management/PR team, as parts of it are lifted verbatim from his own website, thus violating WP:COPYVIO — and while it was previously speedied, undeletion was requested by User:Paraisoevents, which according to Google exactly matches the name of an event management company run by, guess who, Erick Kaffka and his wife, thus violating WP:COI as well. Delete; as always, if a properly sourced article about him can be written I'd be happy to withdraw this, but this version is not properly sourced and does not make a legitimate claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An inspiring story but not one that is encyclopedic. The only source that I could locate was a blog post on the Vancouver Observer that looked like it was either a community-sourced entry or a poorly-written press release. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. Paviliolive (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence that any inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 5 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 12:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Malaysia relations[edit]

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

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

the existence of relations/recognition is not the same as notable relations. there are no resident embassies, no agreements between the countries, and only 1 visit by a minister in 20 years in relations. the article claims major trade partners when in fact the reference says Malaysia represents 0.40% of Estonia's imports. the fact that Estonian DJ played at a malaysian music festival and mentioned one line in an article is scraping the barrel for relations. the other sources provided confirm diplomatic recognition and existence of a honorary consul. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, trade between the two countries is about 13 million Euros, malaysia's total trade is RM1.27 trillion, or 280 billion euro. so Estonia represents a miniscule 0.005% of Malaysia's total trade. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is still a significant trade relations like this article. Plus, if there is no embassies then why still keep some article like the Israel–Malaysia relations when there is no official diplomatic relations and no embassy and even any consulate. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ^ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 18:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13 million euros significant trade? As stated above this is 0.005% of Malaysia's total trade. If Estonia stopped trading with Malaysia, I don't think either country would notice. Israel has a special relationship with all Muslim countries, given that they don't have formal diplomatic relations that's why they don't have embassies. On the other hand Estonia and Malaysia have formal recognition yet no embassies, and can't even negotiate one agreement in 20 years and only one visit by a minister from either country in 20 years. That's how minor the relationship is. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and if you don't like Israel–Malaysia relations please nominate it for deletion but quoting it here is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I note that the Malaysian PM wrote three times to the Israeli PM. I doubt the Malaysian PM has ever written to the Estonian PM once in 20 years of relations. LibStar (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, you know. There's an ongoing relationships between the Islamic community in Malaysia and the Islamic communities of Palestine and Malaysia's diplomatic relations with countries in the Middle East have regularly focused on conflicts involving Israel. There are also suggestions (though in diplomacy-focused blogs, not RS) that Israel intends to open a regional embassy in KL. I don't think Israel–Malaysia relations is a good comparison here. Stalwart111 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, of course. I'd be surprised if most Malaysian diplomats can find Estonia on a map and $13 million in trade is probably just the stuff a handful of Estonians bought from Malaysian manufacturers on eBay. This is just another in a seemingly endless list of X-Y-relations articles and citing other such articles that haven't yet been brought to justice is a terrible argument for keeping this one. GNG, people. GNG. Stalwart111 04:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- these X-Y relations articles are generally terrible, and this is no exception. The sources are not very good, amounting to WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage and it's actually a little bit misleading to present this stuff as actual "relations" between these two nations. Reyk _YO! 11:16, 11 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 speedy delete. G12: copyvio. Duplication Detector confirms it (and shows where a few words were changed, such as from plural to non, to try to hide the cut and pasting). No prejudice against a legitimate recreation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military Museum of North Florida[edit]

Military Museum of North Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

does not meet the notability guidelines for organizations, reads like a brochure for the museum, looks like a cut and paste from http://www.militarymuseumofnorthflorida.com/mission.htm.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not the biggest-time operation, but I think it's a legitimately notable museum based on substantial coverage over a period of years, and it deserves cleanup rather than deletion. I've added some sources to the article, and reduced the promotional tone of some of the text. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the old version because of copyright issues, we can't have that on the history period. Notable museum however so if Arxiloxos can do a complete rewrite that removes all traces of the copyvio, I'll support keeping. Secret ^account 17:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the nominator mentioned cut-and-paste, I didn't understand that to be the main thrust of the nomination, and the article was neither tagged as a copyright violation nor marked for speedy deletion. If you find that it warrants deletion on that ground, please do so. I've struck my !vote.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 3 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 redirect to Kenneth Anderson (writer). slakr^\ talk / 12:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jungles Long Ago[edit]

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

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

Non-notable book, nothing but a resume of contents. TheLongTone (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The author is a very notable writer in India, and internationally in the fields of conservation and hunting. In this regard, as he only wrote eight books (this being the final one) I would deem it a notable book. The page provides general publication history, detailed summary of each short story, relevant quotes, book jacket image and link to an online version of the text. None such information was previously listed on the Author's specific page. You talking2me (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case it would be better to add the revevant information aboutall this author's books to his biog.TheLongTone (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kenneth Anderson (writer). The author is undeniably notable, but notability must still be established for each of his individual works as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED automatically by him having wrote it. I can find where this book is mentioned in passing in relation to the author, but I can't find any in-depth scrutiny of this book in specific. The closest I found was this work, but we'd need more than just one source to show notability. If someone can find them then I'm willing to be persuaded, but by large the sources out there as a whole talk about Anderson himself and his writing career as a whole rather than this book specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thank you for your well argued feedback. On that basis i'll concede that perhaps an individual page is not needed for the book (or his preceding books). I will take the suggestion of TheLongTone and incorporate the individual book information on the author's page, perhaps with a separate heading for each of his books to keep it tidy. I'll try and neaten up the rest of the author's page as well as it is a bit messy. Thanks You talking2me (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem- you might still want to continue digging for sources for him, as it's entirely possible that there is a plethora of sources for him that aren't on the Internet. I know that in the past we've had that happen- especially with sources located in places such as India, where the print sources were never placed on the Internet but would be considered a RS. As such it'd probably be a good idea to leave the article's history intact in case you or someone else does find this sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 31 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Drug Discovery Consortium[edit]

United Kingdom Drug Discovery Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

declined prod as "probably notable". found nothing in BBC, nothing in UK education domain .ac.uk, and a small number of passing references in gbooks. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs in the article, nothing on google. Appears to be a committee not a consortium, so just people chatting. Szzuk (talk) 16:03, 7 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 delete. 28bytes (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Stage Wrestling[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for sports groups/corporations. ColonelHenry (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As not meeting WP:GNG]. Paviliolive (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per GNG. Snappy (talk) 18:17, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible, Inc.[edit]

Invisible, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines as it is applied to video games and other media, and per WP:FUTURE - 5.Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements ColonelHenry (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What notability guideline for video games are you referring to? I could not find one. Regarding WP:FUTURE I believe the article should be kept since it is not a mere product announcement, but an already playable product that is receiving attention from reliable sources. The article consists solely of verifiable encyclopedic information, and much more about the game could be added to the article, particularly by looking under its previous name since the game recently changed its name. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC) edit It meets the GNG as it is covered by many independent reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:53, 30 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) Odie5533 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources available. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First to comment on the current sources in the article, it is the same bit of news - the renaming, so really there is fluff. That said, 1) there are other sources from the original launch of the alpha access [1], [2] (among some); 2) this is a game by a noted developer, Klei Entertainment with several highly recieved titles, and it is unlikely this one will not get more attention in the future as it continues in alpha access. Personally, I wouldn't have created the article, and I would support a merge to Klei Entertainment (as I would have recreated a redirect on its announcement if I wanted to), but there's no reason at all to delete an article that is likely going to be expanded in the future. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Ordinarily, WP:TOOSOON/WP:WAF as there cannot be proper reception without a finished product and thus no critical commentary other than speculation by the press from videos and pre-release versions. That said, the press has directly covered it more than upcoming games usually get covered up to WP:GNG standards (besides perhaps in-depth-ness as per previous reason) and of course a game by Klei will get WP:VG/RS press coverage on release regardless. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that the only critical commentary is "speculation by the press from trailers and gameplay videos", which would be true for most games, but Invisible, Inc. hosted a preview of the game at PAX Prime 2013, and they are making alphas and betas of the game available through Steam Early Access. That means that anyone can buy the game right now and play it, and that any press that wants to can base their commentary on the game, not just videos. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, I didn't see it on Steam Early Access and assumed it's not yet available. But Klei is selling pre-orders on their own site. I have rephrased my argument. I also looked at references again and none of them use the early access version for an in-depth review, most commentary is along the lines of "It’s exceedingly barebones for now, but the skeleton of something great is beginning to take shape." That users can access it does not mean press has "reviewed" it, as much as "review" can apply to an unfinished game in alpha. I would not call this passing WP:GNG with "significant coverage", but then I am confident it will be released, properly reviewed and notable, hence I'm not at all arguing for deletion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Game journalists are hesistent to review games at the alpha stage for various good reasons, so we're not going to have a proper review until after the game is truly released. However, notability does not require reviews, just significant coverage, which includes pre-release details and commentary on the game as from PAX, etc. The fact this type of coverage exists is a good sign that the press will cover the game with proper reviews on release. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hence I didn't say "delete". I just don't consider sources not more than 5 paragraphs each "significant coverage", a criteria which has to apply to each source. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of reliable source coverage available. There's much more available here than just an announcement, and WP:CRYSTAL violations are more about things that fail WP:HAMMER - again, much more than that is known, so this article doesn't apply. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As it clearly meets notability requirements for video games -- although the article should probably note the games name change, as noted in some of the sources. Paviliolive (talk) 16:58, 2 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 keep. v/r - TP 08:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Continuum[edit]

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

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

The article is essentially empty. When I look for sources using "Apache Continuum" I cannot find any reliable sources. It does not appear to meet even WP:GNG. I suspect a merge to the associated Maven article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (1) An article being "essentially empty" just means it's a stub. From stubs great articles can grow. (2) I was able to find reliable pretty quickly (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). (3) The sources I found are sufficient for WP:GNG at least. (4) No opinion on a merge proposal but I suggest it be done in the usual way as I see no reason to delete this article as it stands. --Tóraí (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Did you read GNG? Those "sources" do not qualify as

1. significant coverage
2. in reliable sources
3. that are independent of the subject.

They really do not lend any credibility to the existence of this as a stand-alone article. The fact that it's been a stub for more than two years does not help your case. And of course, just as it says in the guideline related to stubs, "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to List of Apache Software Foundation projects - software article lacking independent references to establish notability, and a search did not reveal significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Simple article describing an integration server. Ideal for those who want to find out what it is, at a glance, you could say encyclopedic. scope_creep talk 15:12 02 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. It is like the other projects. Dependable references need to be added.Whitescorp34 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What other projects are you referring to? My search found no independent, significant coverage reliable sources, and there's no way to add them if they don't exist.Dialectric (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are in-depth articles on continuum at Packt and Java.net. There is an interview with one of the developers at [6], but I don't think this qualifies as a reliable source. Continuum is discussed extensively throughout the book Apache Maven 2 Effective Implementation. The Maven book and the Java.net article are enough to establish WP:GNG notability. The Packt article is also an RS and contributes, but is not entirely independent of the Maven book. The IBM Developerworks article mentioned by Tóraí also has some information on continuum and places it in the context of other CI systems. The article needs sources added, but this and other problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of them meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 10 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honolulu Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

List of Honolulu Police Department officers killed in the line of duty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL; none of the men on this list possess articles on themselves either. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not a proper list, which is supposed to be a list of links to articles. As noted above, none of these individuals have articles. I have inserted a link to the police department's "Roll of Honor" into the article Honolulu Police Department; IMO that is the most we can do. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, that is total nonsense. See criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria. Another example is WP:NASTRO's directions regarding minor planets. What you propose is preposterous and would probably kill the encyclopedia if it became a guideline. James500 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTPEOPLE says that people included in a list should either satisfy the notability guidelines, or, alternatively, be famous for a specific event. It does not require them to have articles. James500 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think "Being killed in the line of duty" counts as a notable event under Wikipedia guidelines. It gets local press but that's usually it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my "delete" vote based on the policies cited below. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This list appears to be a daughter list of List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability as long as the parent list is notable. The manual of style envisages lists that contain no individually notable entries. James500 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Who says that any of these "list of [nationality/city] police officers killed in the line of duty" articles should really be on Wikipedia?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTN. That none of the entries on the list are independently notable is explicitly *not* a criterion for list deletion. It's clear that "Police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject, and just as clear that "Police officers from city X killed in the line of duty" is notable. The criterion is that the entries on the list must be discussed by RS as a group. That's clearly the case here. There are a bunch of these articles, and every last one of them satisfies LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:CSC says list members don't need to be notable which by definition means they do not need to be links to articles. Nothing in WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I forgot about WP:CSC. Thanks for bringing that into the discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and noteworthy subject matter. Educational and encyclopedic. Very well sourced throughout. — Cirt (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a list of cops in Honolulu who died. How is it educational?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:39, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philadelphia Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

List of Philadelphia Police Department officers killed in the line of duty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL; none of the men on this list possess articles on themselves either. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a daughter list of List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability as long as the parent list is notable. The manual of style envisages lists that contain no individually notable entries. James500 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTN. That none of the entries on the list are independently notable is explicitly *not* a criterion for list deletion. It's clear that "Police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject, and just as clear that "Police officers from city X killed in the line of duty" is notable. The criterion is that the entries on the list must be discussed by RS as a group. That's clearly the case here. There are a bunch of these articles, and every last one of them satisfies LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deserves expansion with additional references. Certainly a noteworthy topic and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:CSC says list members don't need to be notable. Nothing in WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 09:04, 1 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vevo Certified music videos[edit]

List of Vevo Certified music videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced fancruft; this is merely a "List of music videos with 100 million views on YouTube and the like". The fact that this is given out by a notable website does not matter in my opinion, it is a non-notable metric. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I created the article following the outcome of a CFD for Category:Vevo Certified songs. There is a mention of the certification within the Vevo article. I agree that the list is merely WP:Fancruft with no real legitimate sourcing of artists/videos that receive this certification. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Violates WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and its stepchild, WP:SINGLEVENDOR. It's a sales measure from a single entity measuring only that entity's distribution, neglecting the broader market. There are numerous streaming and download charts that do not have the same inherent bias.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non important list. List shows no significant aid in navigation to the related articles per WP:L. ///EuroCarGT 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not an industry metric, and certainly not a neutral source of information and easily bent towards influence without knowing how they're exactly measured. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a notable award, and it does seem a bit like an advertisement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 31 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. 28bytes (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Chiropractic[edit]

Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The intent (and value) of this article is grossly unclear. The bulk of the article seems to refer to a degree program of only one education institution (University of Cape Coast), but it is unclear if that is the only institution which offers this degree. If not, the information about the institution should be removed, leaving almost no content; if so, the information should be included in the existing article on the institution, not in a standalone (stub) article concerning the degree. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the descriptive text in the lede ("Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery") is different than the page title ("Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Chiropractic"), making it even less clear what this article is about. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the one reference for the page (to the above mentioned institution's web site), ostensibly to describe that school's program, is now a dead link. [Later] The correct link appears to be here, by name the program in the lede (not the one in the title).Dwpaul ^Talk 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete. I was just about to PROD this when you nominated. Tried to verify or find sources and found nothing. If it's about the degree mentioned in the title I don't think it exists anymore (if it ever did), if it's about the degree mentioned in the lede which Dwpaul found a source for it's already covered in University of Cape Coast which is noted as offering MBChB degrees. acb314 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, alas, and to add to the confusion, I believe ChB is intended to refer to the Bachelor of Chiropractic component, which is not in evidence at all on the school's Web site. So the page about the school seemingly requires some editing also (not only to remove the wikilink to this page if it is deleted). (The school page and this page were created by the same editor on the same day.) [Later] The Web site link above refers to the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree using the short form (MB, Ch B), so it seems as if the B of Surgery is actually a degree in chiro?? What a mess. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's impossible to even tell what the name of this degree is - but fortunately it doesn't matter. It's not deserving of a freestanding article whatever it is. Props to the nominator for finding and nominating this mess. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There have been a few of these idiosyncratic degree programs brought to AfD, and none of them have made any credible claim to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 31 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) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems entirely outside the project's scope. There do not seem to be that many articles on this project concerning subjects similar to this and it seems that very little of the people in this list have articles of their own. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about this list, for example? And this one? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, many of these pages do not seem like they're proper for Wikipedia, considering WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Unless the officer was notable, or the events regarding the death notable, then it doesn't seem like the list has its use on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An article well sourced with a list of notable facts.User:Lucifero4

  I don't see a list of every police officer in Singapore who died on duty is "a list of notable facts". It's a list of names of people who don't have their own articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Usually the death of a policeman received large coverage in the news.User:Lucifero4
• Keep. Police killings are extremely likely to be notable events, whether or not the individual victims are otherwise notable. Lists like this one are encyclopedic and appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:N and WP:V. After reading WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I do not see how it is even relevant here. Per WP:CSC, the individual members of a list do not have to be notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTN. That none of the entries on the list are independently notable is explicitly *not* a criterion for list deletion. It's clear that "Police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject, and just as clear that "Police officers from city X killed in the line of duty" is notable. The criterion is that the entries on the list must be discussed by RS as a group. That's clearly the case here. There are a bunch of these articles, and every last one of them satisfies LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see how "police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject thereby allowing people to produce lists covering every single law enforcement agency around the world and their brethren who died on duty.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that it is according to LISTN, which notes that One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.. That this is the case for "police officers killed in the line of duty" is not hard to see:

  Samuel Walker Professor of Criminal Justice University of Nebraska at Omaha (11 April 1993). Taming the System : The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 32–. ISBN 978-0-19-536015-8.

  Robert C. Wadman (2009). Police Theory in America: Old Traditions and New Opportunities. Charles C Thomas Publisher. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-0-398-08568-1.

  James F. Pastor (12 December 2010). Terrorism and Public Safety Policing: Implications for the Obama Presidency. CRC Press. pp. 327–. ISBN 978-1-4398-1581-6.

  There are many more such sources, and in JSTOR too, which I'm not bothering to link to. It seems to me to be a LISTN slam-dunk.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  LISTN also says the event should be notable. Every single Singaporean cop's death on the job does not seem notable. It does get covered by the local press, as do many events, but these are people only notable for one thing it seems, and that is their death.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No it doesn't, it says exactly the opposite: Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. The individual items do not in fact need to be notable. This is a crucial element of LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But how is the group or set notable?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, as stated above and demonstrated by three of the multitude of sources available.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But none of those are about Singapore. And none of them are about being killed in the line of duty. And the fact that every death gets reported by the press does not count.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you see, you didn't ask me about Singapore at first. You said I do not see how "police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject and I produced sources to show that it was. Now if we're just talking about ones in Singapore, we are talking about "Lists of X of Y", where X="police officers killed in the line of duty" and Y="Singapore." WP:LISTN says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. However, I will say that "policemen killed in the line of duty in Los Angeles," (which you did not nominate for deletion) satisfies LISTN all by itself. Singapore, being as notable a place as Los Angeles, seems to me to have as good a claim to satifying LISTN. And the fact that none of the sources are about police being killed in the line of duty is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the sources treat "police killed in the line of duty" as a group or set, and they're RS, so that makes the grouping notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a real stretch. And these few AFDs are me testing the waters because I really do not see how these lists meet the notability requirements, and simply saying "oh it's a list of two things" means that there's no rule so it's good to go is just complete bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a stretch at all, but good luck to you. I wish you'd bundled them, though. Perhaps you'll put a note at the top of each notifying the closer of the others, since clearly they all stand or fall together.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dont particularly "agree" with the current set-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetPotatoSalad (talk • contribs) 10:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mosaic, dont listen to that trash. Its obvious that SweetPotatoSalad is another aforementioned sockpuppet of Ryulong (talk · contribs · logs). A thread was started on WP:AN/I for all his foolishness so he will be banned soon. I'ma Scoop! (talk)

I'ma Scoop! - Even a total and complete asshole can have an opinion which should be taken into account. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Wiki-star has realized I'm onto him and now he's socking and claiming I'm him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 1 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 Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G11 Promotional DES ^(talk) 01:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libero.it[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTADVERTISING JMHamo (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No RS outside of the website itself. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure advertising of what appears to be non-notable. Probable promotion by someone with COI ES&L 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see notability, the article is promotional itself with marketing figures. ///EuroCarGT 22:56, 30 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. Consensus has not changed in this case. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic Fate[edit]

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

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

Fails On WP:BAND. Article does not evidently demonstrate that this group is notable. Most of the links used in previous deletion discussions in support of keep votes are either dead or irrelevant to the subject and few includes interviews and trivial coverages. They have won the "Best Underground Band" award at the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards in 2005, not sure whether this award is notable. Hitro talk 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes both WP:BAND and WP:GNG, [7],[8], [9]. Citycell Channel-i Music Awards is arguably the biggest music award event in Bangladesh and receives extensive media coverage. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- This band passes on WP:BAND only if the "Best Underground Band" award at the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards in 2005 is notable. Notability of this award should be established in this discussion. Sources confirming that they won this award is nugatory unless this award is notable. If they pass on any other criteria of WP:BAND then please point the criteria number in little elaborative manner. Hitro talk 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 1, 5, 7, 9, 12. For the award, see the link posted below. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- As according to The Daily Star, the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards are "the biggest award ceremony of Bangladeshi music".[10]. And furthermore, Cryptic Fate is one of the most popular bands of Bangladesh. Their Facebook page alone has over 58,000 fans.--Bazaan (talk) 05:59, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total Car Parks Limited[edit]

Total Car Parks Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Car Park company in a single city. As expected, local refs only. As also expected, approved at AfC DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per satisfying Wikipedia:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Several of the sources specifically contradict the "in a single city" claim that is a key point of this deletion nomination. (They use phrases like "across the country" and "nationwide".) If the supposed "single city" concerned is Manchester, it is worth noting that Manchester is not in Essex nor in East Anglia, thus none of the sources can be considered "local". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  I don't see issues here that need community review, and the vague wave to "local refs" and "single city" has been refuted.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Utterly pointless nomination!, Article clearly passes GNG!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:01, 2 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 delete. 28bytes (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fialho[edit]

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

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not establish the notability of this subject. Folgertat (talk) 15:59, 7 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 redirect to Crew of the RMS Titanic. slakr^\ talk / 12:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Sheath[edit]

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

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

WP:ONEEVENT. PROD removed with the rationale that there are a large number of articles on other Titanic survivors. This is a poor argument: part WP:OTHERSTUFF, and partly because many of the people on the ship would merit biographies even had they not been on board. There is, incidentally, also an article on the individual lifeboat on whicj Sheath escaped. TheLongTone (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Delete as per nom fails WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ONEEVENT.
• Comment. Will removing this content from Wikipedia improve our coverage and further our understanding of the Titanic? Hard to see how. Maybe a merger discussion is called for, but I don't yet see a compelling argument for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does including this article "improve our coverage and further our understanding of the Titanic??

Very hard to see how, I think the issues are dealt with already. TheLongTone (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Crew of the RMS Titanic per in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, if WP:BLP1E doesn't allow for a standalone article about this subject. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I deprodded the article, not because I think he's especially notable (he certainly isn't), but because there are indeed a large number of articles on crew and passengers of the Titanic who aren't really especially notable and I felt it needed a wider discussion rather than being nominated for uncontroversial deletion via prodding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's no additional info here that is not already included on several other articles, except for his non-notable biographical info (nothing to merge). ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, merging any relevant content, to Crew of the RMS Titanic. WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, however this is a reasonable redirect/search term and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I struck part of my !vote above, and added "in the spirit of" after the struck portion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - that actually is something I can get behind! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect (probably mostly the latter) -- I suspect that the subject was not responsible for the small number of passengers in the boat; rather it was the officer who directed him to crew it. The tone of the article feels a bit of an attack on a seaman who was only following instructions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I started this AfD, & feel that there is not enough for a merge & that a rediect would be the best option.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 9 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 delete. GedUK  12:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno Legend[edit]

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

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

Completing a malformed AfD nomination by another user. The rationale for deletion was stated by User:71.43.28.22 as "The page is blatant advertising. All text is copied directly from the promotional website with no extra information offered." (Diff page). I presently have no opinion about the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I deleted much of the page as a copyvio. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Google news search turns up 3 results that could justify a stub. Paviliolive (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What results did you find? I only had one item come up in news search, one of the joystiq.com posts.Dialectric (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq has 3 articles on it and PCGamesN has one. That's all I could find. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software of unclear notability, lacking RS references. A search revealed only 1 piece of significant coverage, this mmorpg.com review which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability. There are brief items on joystiq.com covering various beta releases and giveaways, but nothing I see as significant coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:27, 4 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mellisai[edit]

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

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

Although sources exist they are questionable as to their neutrality and I am not seeing notability here per WP:MOVIE. Also this seems a clear case of WP:TOOSOON since the film is not expected to be released before the end of 2014. Article was previously tagged for ref improve and notability and PROD. Subsequently both PROD and all maintenance tags were removed without explanation or any improvement in the article by its creator. I also note the article's creator has a track record of controversial edits and article creations. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the article's creator has a track record of controversial edits and article creations" - how exactly? Please refrain from jumping to such unaccountable accusations. The film is in production, has been reported in the media widely and will release shortly. Editor 2050 (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is about a future film that is in active production and is being covered by multiple third parties. This sufficiently passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:25, 23 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bovineboy2008. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:52, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch Off[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTHOWTO; the latter is surmountable, but the former isn't. "Pinch Off" isn't mentioned at either of the two references present, so perhaps this is just a colloquialism for a type of bread. "pinch off" bread -wikipedia seems to support this. "Pinch bread" is another name for monkey bread, but since it doesn't seem that that's ever called "Pinch Off," there wouldn't seem to be a benefit to redirecting either. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I almost didn't have time to vote on this AfD, I've been so busy working on my article Spoon Fling. It's all about a special kind of crepe. It's just like other crepes, but you start by putting a pat of butter on a spoon, then flinging it into the pan. It's a really fun thing to think about when you're on death row or an intercontinental flight. Delete. Ringbang (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --BDD (talk) 04:12, 23 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This might even qualify for CSD. Neither of the sources mention "pinch off," a Google search returns all sorts of things but no visible "pinch off" bread in the first pages. It's a how-to, and I strongly suspect WP:MADEUP. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:32, 5 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden Faye[edit]

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete BLP that fails GNG or any SNGs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 26 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Significant reliable source coverage not found in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mere nominations no longer enable stubs like this to pass PORNBIO. Finnegas (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep/neutral. Sources are provided and she is somewhat notable, having been in over 20 adult films, though at the same time I tend to agree with the above reasoning. Tinton5 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sources do you think pass RS? None of them cut the mustard in my book. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 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 delete. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save the date[edit]

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

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG as most google hits are websites to order the cards. Secondly, the article seems to have a copyright-problem (Duplication detector) The Banner talk 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With good secondary sources it would pass the GNG, but I didn't find any. Even though its usage in American English is evident, I don't think it qualifies as per WP:NEO and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If this idiom lasts, I expect that a more appropriate article title would be save-the-date notice rather than an imperative sentence. —Ringbang (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears that the blog copied from Wikipedia; that text was in the article earlier than the date of the blog post. (That fact has no bearing on notability, only on the apparent copyright issue.) Cnilep (talk) 09:09, 25 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just a WP:DICTDEF and this is hardly an idiomatic expression that might need explaining so it's not even suitable for the Wiktionary. If the topic is actually trying to be "save the date" card, that probably fails WP:GNG. The most I could find about it is stuff at the level of definition with some advice how to make these which wouldn't be suitable per WP:NOTHOWTO, e.g. [11][12]. A paragraph at wedding invitation should suffice for the concept of this "pre-invitation". Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:29, 1 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 Speedy delete by User:RHaworth per WP:NOTHOWTO. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting the Ideal painting contractors in Caputa[edit]

Selecting the Ideal painting contractors in Caputa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article reads like an instruction manual for how to select a painting contractor. WP:NOTGUIDE.  —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 30 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 with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vidal[edit]

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

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

Unsourced BLP and the article fails WP:GNG Ok Obvious screw up on my part Meant to nominate this article . Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep - Competed in two separate Winter Olympics, so easily meets WP:ATHLETE, and the EL in the article can easily be turned into a reference, just like I have done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 30 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. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheltenham Town Football Club 50 Greats[edit]

Cheltenham Town Football Club 50 Greats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book. Also the content of the article is probably a copyvio of a published list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Half the players on there aren't notable, and the only real coverage of the book at all comes from Gloucestershire-based newspapers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Luke, no indication of significant widespread coverage on this book. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – absence of independent significant coverage on the topic, title also seems to have a NPOV issue ;) C679 13:10, 8 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 delete. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pea Hix[edit]

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

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

Non-notable musician. Article created in 2006 and barely edited since. Subject undoubtedly exists, but there is no indication of notability in the article and a Google search has produced no independent sources on the subject (other than on San Diego local source about photos, not music). Other sites are clones of Wikipedia or publicity/self-promotion. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page as intimately tied to Pea Hix:[reply]

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

Emeraude (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quick google search gave me no sources to prove notability under WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The band that this person in is unremarkable - only links to AllMusic and their official website. Person is not notable. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 30 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. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College Assignment Help[edit]

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

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

PROD removed with no explanation. Essay. (and remarkably badly written: I'm not sure what the article is actually about) TheLongTone (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the first two words neatly sum it up: this is someone's college assignment. The use of references is dubious - none seem to support or even mention what precedes them. Being badly written is not, in itself, a reason to delete - articles can be improved - but that hardly applies here. Emeraude (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using the quality of writing as an argumenet for deletion: the point is that the quality of writing makes it difficult to tell what the article is about, so precluding improvement.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• obvious essay delete and should have been speedied as such. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - as G11. The external links at the bottom all eventually lead (through in-line links) to writengine.com, a source for purchased essays. The text of the article is of the same tone as the the external links. This is sneaky spam. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:19, 30 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 SPOD (band). JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taste the Radness[edit]

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

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

Non-notable self-published album by barely notable band. Can be merged to the band's article (SPOD (band)) Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to SPOD. I don't know if more RS exist and if they do, I'm willing to change my vote. But other than that, I only found one source that goes over a re-release of the album. In any case, unless those sources come about I think that we should redirect to the main article but leave the history in case more sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 30 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Sommer[edit]

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

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

Promotional, written like an advert, appears to be an autobiography that is monitored by an IP, notability not apparent. Jim1138 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability seems to be based on who he represents, not who he is. Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited. Being employed by notable people does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  '"Keep'" notability apparent based on citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamtom123 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and reasons above. Also: Being nominated as "Agent of the year" by a trade pub is of interest only to the trade and (perhaps) potential clients; it doesn't translate to encyclopedic notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:14, 5 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 Procedural Close. Wrong venue. This is a redirect and should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Radio Controversy[edit]

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

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

Non-existent subject Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 30 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 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Because it's a redirect. (The reason for deletion is false: there are legitimate uses of this term that refer to the discovery of radio[13][14] and have nothing to do with the album by the band Tesla, though people may still want to redirect it to the album The Great Radio Controversy. But deleting rather than redirecting will serve no purpose.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 30 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 Cosplay. Consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article. If there is anything mergeworthy, it can be merged from the history.  Sandstein  08:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay photography[edit]

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

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

Wholly unreferenced despite being around for some years. Single in-line ref is to a blog as is the only external link. No notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to cosplay Not much independent info here; what little there is belongs in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful delete. (I don't see any mergeworthy content.) I'd guess that there is something to it; cosplay photography (of which I cheerfully admit ignorance) is not likely to be to cosplay what -- random example -- bridge photography is to bridges; after all, bridges do their (useful) thing even without conscious attention, whereas cosplay seems to crave it. Why my regret? Well, consider this nugget (from an article that can't decide if its subject is a "form" or a "style" of photography): The photos can be black and white, color, any size or shape with any lens, so long as a coslayer [sic] is the main subject. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine Lafitte[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG. the section 'Awards and Nominations' does not specify which is which. Regardless, there is no sourcing which I can locate that she is notable in terms of having won awards or gaining "significant coverage in reliable sources" Finnegas (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I accept that the article now passes PORNBIO and has numerous refernces to reliable independent sources which satisfy WP:GNG . Finnegas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom fails WP:PORNBIO And WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. No valid rationale for deletion. The subject passes WP:PORNBIO#1 per the sourced Venus Award win (as minimum). She passes WP:PORNBIO#4 as she has an established mainstream career (a main role in Danielle Arbid's A Lost Man, a supporting role in Olivier Marchal's MR 73, the TF1 show La Méthode Cauet, guest star in an episode of Métal Hurlant Chronicles, spokesmodel of FHM among other things). She also easily passes WP:GNG per multiple French-language sources (see [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] among others). Note that the nominator has been repeatedly warned about his "targeting foreign porn actors for deletion without considering foreign sources" (eg see [22], [23], among other discussions). Cavarrone 05:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Other editors have fixed most of the nominator's concerns. Subject passes PORNBIO with a Venus Award win. Cavarrone's points above are also valid. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izenda[edit]

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

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

An article about a software company that obliquely hides what it actually does. The article has sources, but they seem to be all in the advertising / press release vein. I did find a discussion forum link here which reveals that the company's owner was struggling to understand the terms unique selling point and SQL injection in 2005, which suggest the rest of the article is probably puffed up a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Non-notable company lacking news/sources of substance. Fails WP:Notability. Microsoft source no longer features alleged video, if it ever existed on the site at all. (a search on the Microsoft site displays no results for 'izenda'). BusinessWeek source proves that company exists but again, notability is not established. Bacefook (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. Not notable. The obfuscation of the company's business does not help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 1 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 merge to Battle Tendency. (and/or redirect if insufficient content exists) slakr^\ talk / 04:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Joestar[edit]

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

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

This does not establish notability independent of Battle Tendency through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per GNG BlueSalix (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle Tendency. It's possible there are enough sources for notability out there (being a major protagonist in a sub series of a fairly notable work), but the chance are they won't be forthcoming before the end of the AfD period. However we have a target page for a summary of the character to be merged to. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle Tendency per Dandy. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:30, 25 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No real-world coverage or sourcing to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Battle Tendency - No notability outside of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What referenced content is there to merge that will help better the merge target? I would have no objection to a Redirect - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:39, 8 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry United F.C.[edit]

Coventry United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

New football club playing at the very lowly 12th level of English football, at which many teams simply play on open pitches in public parks. Accepted cutoff for presumed noability at WP:FOOTY has for many years been level 10, i.e. the level at which teams are eligible to enter the FA Cup. PROD was disputed by Nfitz (talk · contribs) with the rationale "I thought Level 12 was generally the dividing line. None the less, seems to have (barely) attracted enough media coverage to meet WP:GNG". I disagree, so I have brought it here....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete. There is some coverage (WSC, Coventry Observer), but I don't think this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON (i.e. people hoping it to be another FC United / AFC Wimbledon, but it hasn't done enough yet). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN as has not competed in a national competition. Does seem potentially like a case of TOOSOON and would be happy to change my vote if additional coverage along the lines of FC United / AFC Wimbledon can be found. Fenix down (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Controversy and founding could be covered in Coventry City F.C. though a full merge would be excessive. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Coventry City F.C. until such time as it becomes independently notable. GiantSnowman 13:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:GNG, or to be notable otherwise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – insufficient coverage to be deemed notable at this time. C679 13:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not worthy of notice at this stage and would likely set a precedent for an avalanche of similar non notable teams worldwide. Such as the team I'm currently playing on, a team name I will not mention or propose for inclusion :) CrookedwithaK (talk) 10:52, 10 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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lilah Richcreek[edit]

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

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

Poorly referenced article - one acceptable source, one unacceptable blog and an IMDb page. A Google search turns up little to put Ms. Richcreek on the right side of WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One sentence and it fails WP:GNG this one is a no brainer.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1, 2, 3, 4, Lilah's article here no more BlueSalix (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete! One source from The Hollywood Reporter mentions her name clearly, and the refined sentence of the page now stands as a more acceptable revision of this page. More information was added to comply with the encyclopedic rules, and as it stands it appears to be a stub. I don't believe the article should be deleted because The Hollywood Reporter is a nationally reliable third-party source; I contest deletion to the fullest extent perceivable, and will do anything to keep this article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.100 (talk) 20:43, 23 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a single sentence, with no obvious means of being able to expand it via better sources, means at best I can say she doesn't deserve an article now. As for "The Hollywood Reporter is a nationally reliable third-party source", it looks to be as reliable as The Sun from my point of view ie: where accurate neutral reporting of facts takes very much a back seat to gossip and sensationalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete The article has been updated and, as far as I can see, a one-sentence biography is known to be a stub. The desire to delete this article seems to stem from dislike of the person itself; biased. The Hollywood Reporter felt her to be important enough to mention, the writer of the article thereof from the reliable source, so sensationalism is not much of an argument when the fact remains that it's a notable source. One notable source is all it takes to be notable, even if that notability is very small, the sources are what Wikipedia deems as reliable. People keep nitpicking at every detail possible here, but it's a can of worms just being opened. One source, a stub article, request for external notability; done. There's no point I can see in wanting this deleted; simply mark up the notability citation, keep as a stub, and if there's no further improvement in this article over time it may then be appropriately requested for deletion. As of now this is simply biased against this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.173 (talk) 21:29, 1 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 keep, and kudos for improvements. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic reasoner[edit]

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

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

This article is basically a link farm, with a short unsourced description at the top and an unsourced comparison table which may be original research. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Not notable because there are too many published articles about it" isn't a convincing rationale.

This is indeed a crap article that fails to explain the significance of the topic. Probably as a direct result of Wikipedia's dislike of SemWeb topics and regular deletion of them. It doesn't matter to SemWeb people that this is a crap article, because they already know what reasoners are and they no longer give a damn about WP's foibles. However it's a failing of WP, and WP is failing its readership, to refuse to cover this topic. Perhaps WP would do rather better if it stopped trying to delete articles on quality grounds and instead made some effort to either fix them, or at least to stop alienating the people who could do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are misinterpreting my reason for suggesting deletion. A list of software and external links to its developers, forums, company websites, etc., is not the same as "published articles" about the topic. For the record, I nominated the page because if the unsourced information and all of the external links in the body of the article were removed, there would only be an almost empty page left. I don't know anything about any dislike of this topic; it sounds interesting to me. If you are familiar with semantic reasoners and know of published sources (not blogs, forms and other user contributed or developer websites) which explain it, why not add them? Maybe textbooks, computer magazines, professional journals? The external links would still have to be deleted, but some of the software items appear to have Wikipedia articles and could be moved to a "See also" section if there was an article to go with it. You are right, of course, that experts in the field do not need this article. It's readers like me who have a general interest in software and programming who would enjoy reading a properly written and sourced article. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your reason was. All I know is both WP policy, and the effects of your nomination. You ask SemWeb-knowledgeable people to contribute, but if articles don't then meet your invented standard (which isn't even WP:policy), throw them away. If you're not getting enough contribution, throw away even more of it. How could the result be anything else? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now, remove the one useful part of the article so that even people who understand it lose any useful value. Way to go! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems easy to find good sources on the topic which approach it in a similar way, discussing various specific tools which exist for the purpose — see Advanced Techniques in Web Intelligence, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've culled all the non-notable entries (superficially, I didn't search for RS for the redlinks) in the lists in the article and transferred the possibly OR comparison table to the talk page for future work, and removed what looked like a couple of promotional bits. The lead needs to be rewritten according to reliable sources. But a GScholar search shows 524 hits for "semantic reasoner" and 4,590 hits for "semantic reasoning"; this seems like a highly notable concept. A notable topic and article problems that are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's now policy that list entries have to meet WP:Notable? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of cleanup of the link spam, I treated this as a list-based article, and per MOS:LIST and WP:CLN, these lists have entries that are supposed to be notable--either they link to a WP article (with the presumption of notability implied by the article) or they are sourced to independent reliable sources. There are other ways such lists can be justified as notable; for instance WP:LISTN suggests that if a list as a group is considered notable, that could be used too. It may be that there are RS out there comparing semantic reasoners. If so, great--we could use those to build a sourceable list and avoid OR and SYNTH. But without those, culling based on notability builds a defensible kernel of an article that can withstand the slings and arrows of AfD. And instead of simply kvetching about ill-treatment of a topic by WP folk, please pitch in and help build this article on stronger foundations. --Mark viking (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kvetching"? "Pitch in and help"? Sure, because it's not as if I ever create any content, is it. WTF though would I ever work on SemWeb stuff, when key parts of it are up for blanket deletion if there's any question of article quality (which is no part of our conditions for deletion). A "defensible kernel of an article that can withstand the slings and arrows of AfD" is utter crap and totally against what WP should do, and used to do, per WP:IMPERFECT. We need an editing environment where editors are encouraged to contribute, and to do so gradually if that's what available to WP. What we have here is one that invites contributions from experts, then turns around and pisses all over them for no good reason.

If a project is even thinking that this topic deserves outright deletion and ignoring it from that point onwards (and that's what an AfD nomination is), a project that prioritises rappers and pokemon over a core SemWeb topic like this, then that's simply a project of no interest to the editors who might otherwise fix it. I don't know why, but WP does this whenever SemWeb topics come up. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do create good content and I respect your contributions. I apologize for the kvetching comment. I agree that WP:IMPERFECT should be a guiding principle. But the reality at AfD is that "this article is horrible, let's blow it up per WP:TNT or WP:ESSAY or, etc." can be an effective strategy for deletion, even with a notable topic. For a worthy topic, IMO the best way to counter that complaint is to rewrite, or at least cut out the worst parts of the article. If you think I've cut out valuable parts of the article along with the promotional link spam, feel free to revert. --Mark viking (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, I would like to reiterate that, as the nominator, I was in no way influenced by the fact that this article was about a "SemWeb topic". If articles like this were all being nominated by the same group of editors, it might be fair to think there was bias. If there is such a group I don't know about them and certainly would not agree with them. I didn't nominate the article because of its topic, but because of all the inappropriate content. It looks as though several editors are working on improving the article and it will likely be kept. If SemWeb articles are regularly being nominated for deletion, perhaps it's because those who write them are busily involved in their specialty and don't take the time to check on what type of information and sources should be in an encyclopedia article. I too have had articles deleted that were on topics I felt were important, so I don't go around frivolously nominating articles on topics I don't like. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the official website of the software listed calls it a "reasoner" of one type or another, and they are listed elsewhere as different types of "Reasoners" then its a real thing. I see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Rule_Reasoner where they call some of the software on the list Rule Reasoner. The first software listed has on its official website at http://bossam.wordpress.com/ where it calls itself an "ontology reasoner" and "semantic web". Dream Focus 00:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:TNT delete per WP:OR. Mostly unsourced article making weird claims and it's unclear why many of the inference engines it lists qualify for this category. There are only handful of examples that would properly qualify for this topic [24] (but they are not given in this wiki article!) and they are all not-wiki-notable individually (Pellet, OWLIM, FaCT++, RacerPro), and all such proper examples are OWL-related, so they can be covered in the OWL article well enough. Another book covering the same stuff [25] calls this type of software (more appropriately) ontology reasoner. Perhaps redirecting this page to Web Ontology Language (OWL) is the best solution per WP:BLAR. If anyone find useful material in the page's history, it can be merged there later. But most of it fails WP:OR/WP:V as far as the claims go, starting with absurdly board definition etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the 'absurdly broad' definition in the lead is directly sourced to the first ref you give, a close paraphrasing/copyvio in fact. So that bit is verifiable. --Mark viking (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you prepend "In the field of the semantic web," (which is implicit in a book chapter about... duh... the semantic web, then the def is not absurdly broad anymore, but Wikipedia (as a whole) isn't a book about the semantic web, some context is needed before one defines "reasoner" in such terms (or equates facts with axioms). Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that book is from 2010 and this article existed from 2007, so I'm not sure who copied who, just yet. The first version of the article didn't have the def, but I don't have the time now to investigate further right now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:10, 29 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Entirely notable article, certainly not a link farm Anne, and your Afd reasoning is dubious at best. Are you trying to get rid of the article because it has too many links. It a huge and expanding field. The article is clearly passes WP:GNG.scope_creep talk 15:17 02 Feb 2014 (UTC)

In Anne's defense, many non-notable links were removed after nomination. While I disagree that deletion is the best approach, I believe the nomination was done in good faith. --Mark viking (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has changed considerably. The version that I nominated had many external links in the body of the article, unsourced original research, and almost no sources for verification of the information ([26]). However, according to Wikipedia:External links, external links should only be in the "external links" section, not in paragraphs or bulleted sections in the main article, which should have wikilinks and citations instead. It's not just that some of the links were to (apparently) non-notable web pages, but that they were there at all. I too would rather see an article improved rather than deleted, but how do I explain to new users that they have to remove the external links in their articles if the experienced users don't have to do the same? If every single link was to a world famous "Semantic reasoner", they should all be internal links. Looking at the article now, it seems to me that some of the items that are currently in the "External links" section are actually references, and should be moved to that section, whereas the links next to the software items in the article should be either made into citations if they are links to published articles, or moved to the external links section if they lead to websites created by the software's developers. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry Anne. scope_creep talk 15:08 04 Feb 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - This appears to be closely tied with Web Ontology Language, Knowledge representation and reasoning, Ontology language and Knowledge base. Organization of this information can certainly be improved but I strongly believe that deleting or discussion at AfD is not the best way to get there. ~KvnG 18:28, 8 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Haller[edit]

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

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

No indication of significance Ireneshih (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ireneshih - No indication of significance? She's been on a ton of Boards, some of which include the World Security Institute, The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and being the Board Chair at Free The Children, one of the most successful non-profits in the world. The references in the article include a Forbes article about her being honored at a Forbes Women Leadership Event, a Huffington Post article detailing her life and work, a website that journalists use for sources, and numerous credible non-profit websites. This is my first article on Wikipedia, and certainly won't be my last, but I thought that Haller was an interesting subject for my first piece. I was surprised she didn't already have one! -United191 10:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate significance, just take a look at the 'books' link you set up... when you click it, the first to come up is quite obviously Haller - entitled "Do Your Giving While You Are Living: Inspirational Lessons." United191 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are we moving forward with this? United191 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't quite find her to be notable as Wikipedia defines it. Philanthropy is nice, serving on boards of directors is fine, being an activist is all very well - but none of those things by themselves amount to notability. In order to have an article here, a person must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and I could find none. The only Reliable Source cited in the article is the obituary of her first husband. The other citations are either based on information she herself supplied, or are not what we consider a Reliable Source. And I could not find significant material for either Eva Haller or Eva Roman on a search. It sounds like she is a wonderful and remarkable woman, but without the independent sources to prove it, we can't have an article on her. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 29 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my first article on Wikipedia, but I did A LOT of research for it, to avoid this specifically. Although the only reference that you said was trustworthy was her late husband’s obit, there are article in the page from Forbes, the Huffington Post, Jane Fonda’s blog, University websites, and many more. I’ve been using Wikipedia for years, and I’ve seen tons of people with less ‘notability’ than this woman. Understandably, some of the information from these references came directly from her, but some absolutely did not. I invite you to go and read the two books I cited, and the book that comes up when you search for her via the book database on the AfD page. I read them in their entirety.

To me, there’s also a principle of the matter. People from her generation, especially that did a lot before the Internet age, don’t have an extensive online record of their life. I went through all of the information that could be found online, which is extensive and consistent, and THEN more external sources to make sure that this is a reliable article.

For many people who aren’t necessarily at celebrity status, like this woman, there is no one place that lists everything that they’ve done, except for Wikipedia. If she isn’t ‘notable,’ there are thousands of other pages that should be taken down. She is the Board Chairwoman, at 83, for the largest non-profit in Canada, Free The Children. She's been around since their inception… and because of their work incorporating all of society into a child's education, their success is used as a model for other charities and people trying to build in Third World countries!

She’s a Nazi survivor, philanthropist, and change maker. Three of her projects have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (one is Free The Children). She is not only notable, but she is significant. She’s made much more of a change through being on these Boards, it seems like, than you or I will probably ever make in our lives! We need to keep a record of these people that have helped create and shape society so that when generations upon generations after us go back to look and find out who was responsible, the record will accurately stand!

If we write her off, then we are essentially going to be writing off an entire generation of people's information that have limited resources from which we can research… They had the unfortunate experience to be born before the Internet age… what we are telling them is that their accomplishments and contribution to society did not matter. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia to record all the important people and events that we would find throughout history, not just the ones who happen to be fortunate enough to be born in the Internet age!

This is a woman who has been given awards by the United Nations, AARP, Forbes, and many others, at the very least, that is notable.

Let’s find a way to make her page stay. You have to realize, that when you say we should delete it, you’re essentially writing her life off as not notable enough to be remembered and unbiasedly reflected upon on Wikipedia, based of off a number of reliable sources.United191 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Forbes and Huffpost have a reasonable amount of coverage, but that's about it toward meeting WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post & Forbes articles are great, but there are many more sources to be found... I'd suggest you also take a look at the Red Room Magazine article, and all of her bios from different Boards. They are all consistent with what the other publications are saying, and provide even more detail and context. United191 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see clearly that she has met the criteria for WP:BIO with the two basic criteria for any article: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times - she has been honored by the UN, Forbes, AARP, and the Rubin Museum, just to name the ones that I found. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - she has been with Free the Children since the year after they were founded, and has lead the Board since then... it's now the largest non-profit in Canada. She's been on National Security Boards, by receiving the AARP Mentorship Award, we know she has mentored countless people, and lastly, she's been awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by UNFPA - as is verified by pictures of her on their Facebook page, and text on their website. United191 (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone reviewing this has some time tomorrow, watch 60 Minutes on CBS before the Super Bowl. It looks like her project, Free The Children, will be featured. United191 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? I think the best possible solution is to keep the article and continue editing it... the notability is definitley here, and it seems like everybody has aknowledged that (even MelanieN on her own talk page). United191 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since the extension of this page... any more input? How shall we proceed? United191 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Also, the nomination's rationale "no indication of significance" is vague relative to content in the article, in which indication of significance does exist. Some source examples that demonstrate this subject passes WP:BASIC include:

• Forbes
• Do Your Giving While You Are Living. pp. 71-72. ISBN 160037851X
• Huffington Post (newsblog)

 – Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I agree with Northamerica1000 - passes WP:BASIC with flying colours, and I see definitive significance. The last few AfDs I've commented on today haven't had the amount of reliable sources that this one does, like the ones in the above list. Maybe some other sources can be added, like the book above, but they're already relatively well covered in the original version. SayItRight1 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added the book Northamerica1000 mentioned to the article... SayItRight1 (talk) 20:00, 9 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. v/r - TP 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hirsh[edit]

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

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

First AfD ended in no consensus with little participation about three months ago. Lets try again. Borderline at best on notability. I have to lean to delete here, but maybe we can get more participation this time. Safiel (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick Google turned up several stories about, and interviews with this guy in WP:RS publications in the first couple pages of hits. He seems to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of stories on the web featuring or interviewing him as a commentator on technology — but that's not the same thing as stories or interviews where he's the subject of the coverage. The latter kind of coverage is what we're after when determining whether there's enough verifiable content about a person to support a Wikipedia article or not, and there isn't a lot of that out there. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion At the very least he can be noted in a couple sentences in his wife's articles. I'malso not convinced he isn't independently notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose deletion One of Canada's leading commentator and broadcaster about technological matters. Has a major nation-wide audience on highly respectable Canadian Broadcasting Company. The AFD is astonishing. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person can quite easily be a "leading commentator and broadcaster" with a "major nation-wide audience" while still not actually being the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. I've heard of the guy too, but the fact that there isn't a whole lot of coverage about him is not "astonishing" — media personalities actually fall quite frequently on the wrong side of the distinction between I've-heard-of-them "fame" and properly-sourceable "notability", because the fact that they appear in media coverage of other topics is not the same thing as being the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've said above and in the first AFD, the problem here is that while he frequently appears in media coverage of other subjects as an authority on those matters, he isn't the subject of enough media coverage — the kind where he's the topic of the coverage — to write a properly verifiable article that cites enough reliable sources to get past WP:GNG. We actually have this problem quite frequently with television and radio personalities — their names are well-known enough that they seem notable, but since they aren't the subject of the coverage it's almost impossible to actually write an encyclopedia article about them without relying almost entirely on primary sources like their Speakers Bureau profile or their "meet our personalities" blurb on the website of the television or radio outlet that they work for. He's certainly notable enough in principle that he should qualify for an article — but this article, as written, is not good enough to be kept, and there aren't enough sources out there about him to improve it. Delete, but do so without prejudice against future recreation if and when there are more good sources that can be cited. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• [27] and [28] are both half-decent pieces that are about him, rather than him providing his opinions. They are, however, local sources. I would say, however, that these do combine with the fact that he seems to be CBC's go-to man for this sort of thing to convey some notability, as much per WP:COMMONSENSE. As the coverage on him is generally local, however, this is a Weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 30 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. Consensus that additional info about judo career establish notability.Mojo Hand (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alida Gray[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article and sources fail to establish notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her notability isn't established based on MMA. Her notability is based on being an Olympic Judo athlete. Typically a person who is an olympic judo athlete is an automatic qualifier for notability. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]