Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 11 December	13 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colares UFO flap[edit]

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

No reliable sources, none added since March 2013. 78.73.162.169 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nomination and am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article, UFOs supposedly attacked people with radiation beams on an island in Brazil. There are no objective sources available to show notability of these extraordinary claims. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have the same concerns as LuckyLouie. About.com is pretty much the most reliable source listed, and that's kind of sad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:RS, please also refer to an associated article Operação Prato which shares the same problems. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UFO sightings in Brazil. Probably some reliable sources can be found. --Carioca (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would you care to point out any you have found? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali Malik[edit]

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

May still fail our general notability guidelines. I struggled to find multiple reliable sources, but perhaps in Urdu. SarahStierch (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Highly unpopular. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough, we do not usually accept this as a criterion for deletion. We do still, after all, have an article on Adolf Hitler! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decision changed, wasn't aware about his parliamentary position. So Keep, and Necrothesp, Hitler is popular though. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining popular? Saying "Highly unpopular" implies the gentleman in question is highly unpopular, which most certainly applies to Hitler (in most of the world, at least). Do you mean the article doesn't have many viewers? That's certainly not a criterion for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, when i said "popular" it meant for the amount of viewers instead. Sorry Necrothesp, will explain next time. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, but appears to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN as he has served as a member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. He meets WP:POLITICIAN by having been an elected member of the Punjab assembly. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is verifiably a member of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab passing WP:POLITICIAN. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Alberta Yoga Teacher Training College[edit]

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

I originally believed that The Alberta Yoga teacher training college wasn't notable, so I tagged it with a CSD. User:Malik Shabazz informed me that this article didn't meet the criteria for CSD, so it had been changed to a PROD. The user that created this article disagreed with the PROD so the deletion tag was removed. I am proposing deletion (at AfD) on the grounds that this yoga school isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Seems like a good yoga school but I can't find any indication of coverage in secondary sources like books, newspapers or magazines which means it fails WP:ORG.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roldán+Berengué, arqts.[edit]

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

This is irredeemably spammy: it's a resume with a bunch of URLs linking to projects. I have little doubt that the company and/or the individual people are likely notable, but this article in its current form is completely unacceptable. I would have deleted it summarily, but in this forum perhaps someone can use some of the info to make real articles out of it. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree the article is a mess with many issues. So many its hard to know where to start. For example there are two BLP's embedded in the article that either need to be spun off or deleted as non-notable. If all the awards listed are real, this might be a notable organization. It would take some research to find out one way or the other.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Squeezing together a pair of unsourced BLP articles does not make the result any more notable or better-sourced. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic Institute of Canada[edit]

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

No reliable sources found to show that this is not just a castle in the air or a hoax. The institute is not listed in Robert K. Headland's A Chronology of Antarctic Exploration, neither are the research stations recently added (and removed by me) to the article Research stations in Antarctica. Information about the founder, Austin Mardon, can be found here. 4ing (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of reliable sources verifying the information given. It appears that the institute is run by Austin Mardon who created the article, and he is known in Canada for his promotion of the rights of those with disabilities. He has received the Order of Canada for this work, and the citation is helpful in confirming this. Neither Dr Mardon nor the institute are mentioned at the Canadian Polar Commission website. --AJHingston (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 18001–19000. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18027 Gokcay[edit]

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

I don't think it has any notability, and upon Googling it...well, I couldn't find much. Any comments appreciated, of course. GRUcrule (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 18001–19000. Nothing particularly special about this rock, per WP:NASTRO. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 18001–19000 per WP:NASTRO; no defining characteristics whatsoever. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can't find any independent sources except dictionary listings.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InterWorks, Inc.[edit]

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

Promotional article on consulting firm, with minor or local awards. 1999th "fastest growing" is not significant notability DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Almost zero reliable secondary sources for this 85 employee, $2 million dollar a year, small business.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created by sock of User:MarkMysoe. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Aboagye[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article two sources show no evidence of notability. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sufficient notability has not been demonstrated. C 679 17:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definate Keep – Clifford Aboagye has played fully professional football league matches in Spain with Granada CF and in-which Clifford Aboagye has as well played a few number of professional football league matches in the Ghana Premier League which is a fully professional football league, and Clifford Aboagye received the FIFA U-20 World Cup Bronze Ball at the 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup, so the professional footballer Clifford Aboagye meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Professor. Ralf Hiltz (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectuals and Society[edit]

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

No evidence that the book meets WP:NBOOKS. All sources in the article are used to simply source what the book is about. No information about reviews. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable book. The first pages of Google reveal substantive commentaries in City Journal [1], The American Spectator [2], The Chronicle of Higher Education [3], American Thinker[4], Chalcedon Report (reprinted here [5]), The New Republic [6], and Foreign Policy (with the entertaining title "Intellectual says really stupid thing to prove point about intellectuals: film at 11") [7], plus one from National Review that is mentioned by others but seems to have vanished from the web. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos' multiple book review finds. The American Spectator, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and Foreign Policy are all reliable sources (the others may be, too, but I don't know them) and the sources' articles go in depth about the book itself. Thus the book seems to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:NBOOKS for notability. The article is sorely lacking in secondary sources, but given the multiple reviews, this is a surmountable problem per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable book and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources mentioned above and the book sources that I linked in the previous AfD. The article text iself is poor, but that is a matter of improvement not deletion. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been found but no one has bothered to add them to the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment exactly the same, can't get the book's page deleted the next best thing is to add every negative review of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_9 — Preceding

- That may be true, but is not a good reason for deleting the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned comment added by Estermackayy (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the keep votes above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David D.A. Doman[edit]

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

May fail our general notability guidelines. I struggled to find multiple reliable secondary sources for the subject. Perhaps others can provide different insight and knowledge about the subject. SarahStierch (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I cannot find anything in Google News or Google Books or NewsLibrary.com. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable or significant in anyway.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 07:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Movies: Bonus CD[edit]

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

Non-notable soundtrack album given away free with DVD purchase. No independent reliable sources indicate that this CD is notable separately from the series. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Even though the subject isn't notibal for its own article I still think that is is notibal enough that it should be merged with the article Home Movies (TV series). --Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this a notable album because Brendon Small is a notable musician. If this page does get deleted I'll have no choice but to merge it with the Home Movies season 4 page. But considering how long the track listing is, I feel it's better to just give the album it's own page. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the musician is not inherited by the album. The album itself needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in terms of a stand alone article. More details can be found at WP:NALBUM. Mkdw ^talk 02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A bonus CD doesn't require an article. A mention on the artist's page should suffice without needing to merge the entire track list. --20:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete as not separately notable --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't found anything that suggests this is a suitable subpage and it does not have the RS and coverage for its own standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkdw ^talk 04:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotline_Communications[edit]

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

I have been talking with the creator of the page that suggested an AfD instead of proposing it for deletion. In my opinion, this article has notability issues. The references given come from non notable websites. I have been looking on Google but didn't find anything really notable. Puda (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have also done a google search and found no proof of notability of the topic.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a fairly popular P2P file sharing system on the Mac in the 90s. Hotline was the subject of two articles at Salon.com [9], [10] and a 2013 retrospective article at Macworld [11]. These are reliable sources and in depth. In addition, there is a paragraph at MaximumPC. An in depth blog (probably not reliable) is at FileShareFreak. These AngelList and docshut links by one of the founders of Hotline points to other possible reliable sources, but I haven't hunted them down. There appear to be multiple in depth independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. The article could use some inline citations, but has no insurmountable problems. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage identified by Mark viking is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, the sources found by Mark viking are adequate. It can take some work to find sources to verify details about older software, but this software was important enough that we should keep digging for better sources instead of deleting the article. I had a hunch that Wired probably covered it, and I searched it and found these articles: "Street Cred: Hot Connection" (1997), "Hotline Reinvents the BBS" (1998), "Still Plenty of Music Out There" (2001). I also found some descriptions of Hotline Connect in papers like this one. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources provided by Dreamyshade and Mark viking, a quick check on Google Books found this, a page from the book Maximum Security discussing Hotline. The legal case involving Hinkley, the creator of Hotline, is also mentioned in Australian Intellectual Property Law, a textbook on the subject, as well as in McCallum's Top Workplace Relations Cases, a casebook on employment law. At best, one might argue that the subject of the legal case is distinct from the subject of the software, and that one might be a coatrack for the other. But I think that there's definitely enough sources to present a useful little article on the history of this software. It does need a bit of a tidy up though. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittana[edit]

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

WP: FANCRUFT Admiral Caius (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Trivial details, such as cutesy names for soap opera romances, probably don't even belong in the main article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with NinjaRobot this article dosn't need to be here if it just supplies trivial details.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons already supplied by NinjaRobotPirate. GRUcrule (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Photonics[edit]

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

Non-notable company? Difficult to tell given state of article. Interesting article history - it was created by someone dumping refs on a page and someone else turning them into text (and that person had nominated the page for speedy). Emeraude (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to be a startup company that managed to do well enough to be bought out. But it did not attract the significant coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not meet WP:ORG as secondary source coverage consists of insignificant mentions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Powers(Writer & Comedian)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Though I wish him all the best, Mr Powers does not currently meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd really like to encourage that anyone coming on here due to Powers' posts on Facebook or Twitter posts look through our policies for notability and read through the delete comments posted above. Any and all people on Wikipedia must pass our notability guidelines. The existence of other articles that do not pass notability guidelines only means that they haven't been caught and deleted yet. The deletion of this article (if it happens) will be based upon coverage in reliable sources and does not reflect on the merits or ability of Powers, just on how much coverage he has received in reliable sources. Existing is not notability and I'd also like to emphasize that personal attacks or disparaging remarks on Wikipedia editors will not save the article and will only ensure that your arguments towards inclusion will likely be disregarded. Any arguments that fall along the lines of "I like Powers", "He's obviously notable because ___" or anything on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions will most likely not help sway the deletion discussion because this ultimately isn't a vote and these things are closed based upon the strength of arguments that follow our guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual. Likely autobiography that reads like a resume. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You know the article is usually deletion worthy when the disambiguation in the title is that botched. Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Powers (Writer & Comedian) had significant roles in films and has a large fan base. He has more than 12,000 followers on Twitters and his comedy and writings are appreciated. So, his page should not be deleted. Botching up his disambiguation is the issue with the editor who created the page not of John's. Articles on much less popular persons are on Wikipedia. John deserves a page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarada14 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A person can have a lot of Twitter followers, but that isn't how we judge a large fan base. We judge the fan base by how much coverage they have received. For an example of what type of a fanbase you'd need to have this person pass notability guidelines, take a look at the fanbase for say, Rocky Horror Picture Show or My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I'll be honest- we've had a lot of people with a larger fanbase than Powers' fail notability guidelines, as can be seen with Goddess Bunny. She's even had a documentary filmed about her, yet she has never gained the coverage necessary to gain an article. As far as other people having articles that are less popular, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really go for much here. A lesser popular person might have gained coverage enough to merit an article or they might not merit an article at all... and just hasn't been noticed and nominated for deletion just yet. As far as film roles go, the role is only as notable as the film is. Sometimes, rarely, a role can gain more notice than the film but in general if a film or series or whatnot hasn't received coverage to show notability, the roles (no matter if they're major or minor) will not give notability. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'll say that none of these arguments will really keep the article as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that you can say that someone passes all of the notability guidelines, but you have to prove it via reliable sources that pass Wikipedia's guidelines. IMDb is not a reliable source. The amount of Twitter followers isn't a RS either. A reliable source would be something such as a news article about him in a place that isn't affiliated with Powers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The problem is that despite the claims of notability, Powers hasn't actually received any coverage to show that he's really all that notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to stress Wikipedia's guidelines, which are very strict. Someone can be popular enough but never gain notability per our guidelines. Another person I want to hold up as an example of failing notability guidelines would be Harry Partridge. He has just over half a million followers on YouTube, 28,000 followers on Twitter, and more on other social media sites. He's animated for BBC... yet has never passed notability guidelines for his own article. That's how strict notability guidelines are on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all in favor for adding more and more individuals on the Wikipedia database, but not even 1 source is cited for such a long text. There is no way this can be accepted as a reliable article. --Tco03displays (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have found and added two third party references to the article, which I believe warrant consideration for keeping the biography. --Rvstoltz (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PR Web is a press release service so the content you read there about John Powers is written and paid for John Powers. It's most definitely not a third-party source. Pichpich (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you have to do to get a wikipage - if existing sources are not enough? It really seems as though alot of effort & attention is going towards denying this actor a page. Why? The misinformation I read daily on various Wikipedia entries is staggering - Tokyogirl79 is coming across as a scorned ex-girlfriend rather than a impartial 'editor'- I would like verification she is NOT. I'm a registered user - but my user id is not working for some reason. Signed, Steve Benjamin-nyc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.196.176 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think TokyoGirl79 already explained it well, but I can reiterate it more bluntly: until reliable sources take notice of the person and devote significant coverage to him, he fails our criteria for inclusion. This means a full-length article in The New York Times or The Village Voice, for example. Also see WP:42, which is an informal summation. By the way, personal attacks will get you nowhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. I can verify that I'm not an ex-girlfriend of Powers. I'd actually never heard of him before this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another third party reference (as has been requested) which makes reference to Mr. Powers. --Rvstoltz (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The latest sources that you added to the article seem legit, but I've got bad news. What you've got now is a person famous for a single event. At best, this is worthy of a mention on the Citi Bike article, not a reason to keep this article. In my opinion, those articles are about the event, not the person. A review of his work, retrospective on his career, or interview with him would be better. If you can find those, then I'll change my vote. Web sites that employ him do not count. They're paid to say nice things about him. It has to be an independent source, like a magazine or newspaper. PR doesn't count, either. That's written by him or his representatives. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I have followed Mr. Powers' blog for some time now and have heard commentary on RUFKM. Additionally, I caught one of his most recent performances in Long Island. It may be time to consider revising your standards for current artists. BHBlair (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)— BHBlair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete. I live in NYC and his CitiBike article was a very big deal. He touched on privacy issues and the nanny-state that New York City is becoming. He also had a feud with Al Roker. He may not be Dane Cook, but he is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.157.202 (talk)

It all boils down to coverage. Now the thing about feuds is that you'd have to show that Powers has had a lot of coverage about the feud. I couldn't really find anything to show that this feud is really notable. I'm not saying that it didn't exist, just that nobody really gave it any attention. Now when it comes to someone being involved with someone that is notable in any way, that notability is not inherited by that association. Being in a feud with Roker would make it more likely that it'd gain coverage (and by extend, Powers gain coverage), but that's not a guarantee of coverage. Even if you had 1-2 reliable sources, you'd have to show that the coverage was extensive enough to be more than just a trivial feud of little true consequence. In other words, you'd have to have feuds along the lines of what you see in articles such as Hip hop feud. Behind the scenes feuding doesn't really give notability regardless of how heated or nasty it gets. Part of this is because until we have coverage in RS, it's mostly based on rumors and hearsay- something we have to avoid here for legal reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two third party interviews as reference for further consideration to keep this bio . --Rvstoltz (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources is linked to Powers' own page, which has a bit of an issue with copyvio. The thing about radio shows is that those are sometimes dubious as sources because of several reasons: people argue that interviews qualify as primary sources (which I don't necessarily agree with), that the person isn't covered in-depth (something I also don't always agree with), or that they're really not the focus of the spot and have been brought in to commentate on another topic (one of the most common arguments). There are other arguments that people use, such as the tone of the spot interfering with how we'd consider the source (casual versus semi-serious interview)- it's pretty hard to show a radio show as a RS, which is why so many people consider them to be so depreciated. I'd be willing to argue for this as a potentially reliable source, although I will note that Powers doesn't seem to be the actual focus of the interview as a whole. The other source wouldn't really be a reliable source to show notability. Most podcasts don't count towards notability regardless of how popular they might be. Now one thing to think about: the page asserts the following: "John has won an Emmy for his graphic design work." Is this Emmy for Powers and can you back this up with a reliable source such as the Emmy website? Was it a group award or a single award? If it's a group award for a larger project then it might be argued that his name would redirect to whatever the project was, but it's a step in the right direction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, essentially this is the sort of thing that should be what you're trying to find sources about and put on the page as opposed to his comedic career, which hasn't really gained that much attention in the long run. Emmy wins can save articles, but again- you'd have to show proof that he won the award as opposed to the award being given to an overall company he worked for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who is this guy? He got into a little argument with Al Roker, He has a blog, he wrote an article about Citibike, and he is an MC at a comedy club, and he is a comedian. uhm, HELLO? Delusional!!! You're not famous! Maybe you will become famous but fighting to keep an inorganic Wikipedia page alive is not the way it will happen. Get over it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SlocumSliders (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 December 2013‎— SlocumSliders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please be more neutral when you phrase your arguments, as this comes across as an attack against Powers rather than a NPOV AfD rationale. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who determines which argument has the most merit? TokyoGirl and Ninja are both responding to other users which is considered "disruptive." It seems like this guy has significant press coverage and has had an interview on TV. That's notable right? If people will use Wikipedia to gather info on the comedian behind the CitiBike hoax and the parody songs, this page should exist. Also, it is insulting to tell any artist that their work is not notable so it is understandable that this guy would rally support from social media. The fact that his fans are speaking up is a testament to his legitimacy in the landscape of public personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.30.194 (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments that have the most merits are the ones that follow the guidelines for notability per WP:NACTOR. The problem in a nutshell is that Powers lacks coverage in places that would be considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now when it comes to insulting, it's unfortunate that people take our notability guidelines that way. It's not meant to be insulting, just that over time we've had so many people come on here to create articles that the guidelines (which were approved by a large group of Wikipedia users) have become exceedingly exclusive. That means that people who might be "net famous" or famous within a certain niche would fail notability guidelines. You're welcome to solicit changes at Wikipedia talk:Notability, but I'll warn you that things are unlikely to change to where Powers would be included for just the videos or the CitiBike hoax. Again I'll say that if someone can show that Powers specifically received an Emmy win, that would help establish notability for him. As far as myself and other editors responding, it's not considered disruptive to try to explain why a certain argument made by a new/IP editor does not fall within what type of arguments will keep an article on Wikipedia. The reason we make these arguments is because if an argument made by any editor does not fulfill notability guidelines (which always boils down to coverage in RS that proves the claims made) then it won't keep the article regardless of how many people on here come to say that an article should be kept. I've seen articles deleted with just one delete rationale because the weight of the deletion argument. The same can come from one person making a very good "keep" rationale, but it must absolutely fall within our guidelines for notability proved by reliable sources. I'm sorry if Powers' feelings or the feelings of any fans were hurt by this AfD, but we can't keep an article because it would make someone happy. We have to keep an article based on notability guidelines. I can't stress that enough and people coming on here to post "keep" votes without reading over the notability guidelines and trying to find coverage in reliable sources that would be considered a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines does not really help anything. That's why we keep responding to people saying "keep", in the hopes that maybe someone will actually find RS that show notability. So again- if you can find sources for the Emmy nomination that show that Powers received the nomination and not as part of a larger corporation, (ie, the win specifically names him as part of the team) then that would help show notability for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of this guy. He is pretty big in NYC. Not sure why you don't think he's notable. The NYC comedy scene and entertainment scene all know him. John Powers has been on the scene of comedy for 10 plus years in New York and Florida, He's an Emmy Award winner for his work at ESPN, an accomplished singer song writer, guitarist, you want him on your wall you need him on your wall. He's the real deal and I totally promote and stand up for him. Pcareccia (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)— Pcareccia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Moving this here from the other page, as it won't be seen there. In any case, please find a reliable source that proves that he got the Emmy. I tried finding it and all I can find are WP:PRIMARY sources by Powers that say that he got the Emmy. I can't find any real notification on the Emmy site that says that he was part of a team that received the Emmy. The thing to remember is that he has to be listed on the Emmy win as one of the primary people associated with the graphic. For example, if you scroll through this announcement of the 34th Emmys, you'll see that the Emmy win names four people. It's obvious that they weren't the only people on the team, but they were the main people that were named in relation to the Emmy. Being part of the unnamed team for the group that won doesn't really count as winning an Emmy in the same way that being named on the Emmy website would. You have to have some sort of verification about this sort of thing, otherwise it's just a claim and we have no way of verifying how much Powers actually worked on the title card. I'm willing to work with people, but you have to show proof via reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He may or may not be notable. He just hasn't been shown to be notable. There might be 10,000 articles about him in the Gothamist, he might have kissed 50,000 babies, and he might be the next Emperor Norton. At the moment all that has been shown so far is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. If someone can document a couple more notable events it should be an easy article tos ave under WP:HEY. If you think he's notable then spend ten minutes and prove it. If he's a living person who's adept with social media and ten minutes doesn't prove it then he's probably not ultimately that notable at this point (and WP:CRYSTAL is fairly clear about the future). Neonchameleon (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would look into his twitter "following". A guy that would try to put his résumé on here would certainly buy some followers. In 30 seconds I found out 70% of his 12k are fake. He's not notable. Case close. LarryDay22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) — LarryDay22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete. Fake twitter followers come with notoriety. This article in Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2012/08/27/celebrities-with-the-most-allegedly-fake-twitter-followers/) shows that President Obama and Kim Kardashian have nearly the same ratio of fake to real followers. Bots gravitate toward celebrities to spam other users. Also, the interview on the Tim Brando Show is a reputable source and they talked about a comedy show he did in Shreveport, proving he is not just a New York local wanna-be. Keep this article. FctChckR (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)FctChckR[reply]

Delete. If you're not making a living as a standup comedian, you don't deserve to be credited as one on Wikipedia. Anyone can do standup and call themselves a comedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.157.87 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah there. This is not a place for attacks against Powers. How much one makes as a comedian does not qualify or disqualify their ability to call themselves as such. The amount of money someone makes also doesn't equate to notability- someone can be dirt poor and still be considered notable as long as they have coverage. Please refrain from making deletion arguments that come across as personal attacks. AfD arguments should fall within the guidelines for notability, as seen in arguments such as the one below by Walter Görlitz. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a sufficient number of RSes to confirm the subject meets notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After doing some research on him, this subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines per above. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment On the face of things, the subject appears non-notable (and this may well be the ultimate consensus with reference to policies). However, I found a few other points to note, so will do so below shortly. Thanks in anticipation of your patience. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous incarnations of this article were:

John J. Powers (actor, comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John J. Powers (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A version also still exists at User:Jkinzler777/John J. Powers (actor, comedian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
We have at least one prior deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Powers (comedian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), although this doesn't look like a CSD#G4 version of that.
I found a single possibly relevant reference.[12] Other potential references are out there, but the popularity of the name complicates the search process.

This is probably still looking like delete but I think it warrants further time/discussion in order consider this collective new information. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevj: that link is clearly unrelated to the subject and was written in 1987. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for carelessly missing the 1987 date. However, I still feel that the other AfD and pervious article incarnations are worth noting. If consensus is evident before the 7 days are up then there's no reason why this can't be closed before then. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sufficient sources to provide evidence of notability, though I may change my mind if he's the same John J Powers who wrote Disneyland und Deutschland about Hitler's meeting with Walt Disney[13]; that play (despite consensus about its awfulness) has got more press than this comedian. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With fans as dedicated as these, it won't be long before Mr. Powers generates enough press in reliable sources to pass GNG but for now after looking through this discussion and the sources I can't say that's the case now. It seems 95% of the keep arguments fall into Arguments to Avoid. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. Two of the "references" aren';t even references ( links to a youtube video and a podcast) and the other two are just about the hoax he perpetrated. North8000 (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen JaiHind[edit]

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

Article is very poorly written, doesn't exactly pass WP:N, and the only two sources are Twitter and Facebook. 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 13:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has no 3rd party sources to prove notability and the article itself is written in a very promotional way.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Serio[edit]

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

Article about a drumer who IMO fails to have notability. It was created in 2008 by someone who has no other Wikipedia edits. The article claims that Serio "has performed with artists like...." but gives no detail or references. His recorded work, according to the article, consists of self-released albums and session work for no one sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. Article was tagged for speedy deletion on 7 June 2008 but this was declined less than three hours later with the comment "I don't think this qualifies for speedy delete. Take it to afd, if you must." So, here it is. Emeraude (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has no 3rd party sources to back up the clames of notability. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does have one reference which is an album review. A single album review in one magazine is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - However, he does have some mention in third party sources and may meet the notability threshold in future.
- Modern Drummer
- Jazz Discography
- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (PA) - December 30, 2007, CD reviews: Ken Serio's 'Moment' is serious jazz-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramendra Nath[edit]

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

No scholarly mention of this person, nor any national level of prominence, even though this page is over 4-5 year old, it has not even thousand of search results(that refers to this specific person), other names such as "ramendra nath saha" or "ramendra nath nandi" being more popular.. And even the first page(of google search) is flooded with the profiles of those "Ramendra nath" that have to do nothing with this person. So not even popular, but obvious self-promotion. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Can't find anything on Ramendra Nath on JSTOR. Also, the department of philosophy at Patna University does not list this individual so even the weak claim to notability is not satisfied.[14]--regentspark (comment) 11:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of media coverage or notability. Also, it appears that most or all of his books are virtually self-published ie. published by the foundation of which he is a leading member.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2011 Helmand Province incident. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Blackman[edit]

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

I would recommend merging interesting information into, and then redirecting to, 2011 Helmand Province incident. N.B. I did create the latter article, but WP:1E seems to be in favour of redirecting to the article on the event, saying: "[If] individual plays a major role in a minor event ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage." It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This looks like an classic example of when a merge would be the best option to provide information and easy reading.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, ok to merge into the larger article, with a redirect, although I am not sure the current title is the best one for this article. PatGallacher (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fair point, but one, I think, best suited to a different discussion. I modelled the title on the existing redirect "2007 Helmand province incident" (although I capitlised it per the title of "Helmand Province"), since the sources had not given the event any obvious label (à la 7/7 or what have you). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - per nomination. Individual seems to lack "significant coverage" in WP:RS and is probably non-notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious merge - Blackman may eventually merit a separate page, depending on future developments (if any), but in the meantime the same information appearing on the main subject page should suffice. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 Helmand Province incident. Although the latter article needs renaming, as it's completely unclear what it refers to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPC International[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced except for own web-site and a directory listing. No external third-party sources. No evidence of any notability and no assertion of any particular notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has no 3rd party sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 07:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free! (manga)[edit]

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

This manga does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BK. Of the 4 sources currently used in the article, two are primary sources from the manga's publisher ([15] and [16]), one is a mention on a news website about the manga's serialization start ([17]), and the last one is being used to support a claim not present in the source, not to mention that said source does not even mention Free! ([18]). A Google search turned up another news mention of the serialization ([19]), but mostly the search contained blogs and retail websites selling the manga, or websites connected back to the publisher. I contend that this coverage does not satisfy the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as stipulated at WP:GNG, nor do I find evidence of it satisfying the criteria at WP:BK, so I believe it should be deleted.十八 09:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.--十八 09:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.--十八 09:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Oppose~~ (change to merge to Manga Time Kirara Max magazine article) - this unnotified AfD, following an unnotified prod is related to Talk:Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club where a move proposal has been submitted to make the TV anime WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Free!. The problem is that on the Japanese wikipedia the situation is reversed, the schoolgirl comic book is WP:PRIMARY japanese TOPIC ja:Free! while the TV anime series about the swim club is disambiguated as ja:Free! (アニメ) i.e. the ja.wp disambiguator (アニメ) is (anime). I suggest that this isn't the best use of AfD for an AfD to be issued simply because a competing article wants "primary" topic status. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with "primary topic". This manga is a non-notable topic, as I have evidenced above, and does not deserve an article on the English Wikipedia. I honestly am not too interested where Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club ends up, as I have yet to actually vote in the move debate, but when it comes to creating articles on non-notable topics, I'll move for deletion. And it was hardly "unnotified". I mentioned it at Talk:Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club, a debate you are a member of, and I also listed it at the two deletion sorting pages linked above.--十八 10:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the guidelines on notification for both speedy Prod and AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Yes, I may have overlooked notifications for the prod, but I did what was required for the AFD, not to mention that specifically notifying the article's creator via their talk page is not required.--十八 11:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~...and also oppose on merit~~ (change to merge to Manga Time Kirara Max magazine article) - the procedural issue aside, in terms of the content of these Manga Time Kirara Max magazine 4-panel comic strips this one doesn't seem notably thinner in the ja.wp article than Gochūmon wa Usagi Desu ka?, Kanamemo, Kiniro Mosaic, Rakka Ryūsui, The Last Uniform and Welcome to Wakaba-Soh. If it really fails notability in Japanese sources then Gochūmon wa Usagi Desu ka?, Kanamemo, Kiniro Mosaic, Rakka Ryūsui, The Last Uniform and Welcome to Wakaba-Soh probably would also fail notability in Japanese sources and a bulk AfD for all 7 comic strips should be issued on ja.wp as well as here. Why is this 1 not notable and the other 6 are? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, please do not try to make this discussion about other articles. This discussion should be about if Free! satisfies notability guidelines, not whether other similar articles already exist.--十八 10:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." - it also happens to be an essay some editors including myself consider extremely silly. The reality is that per actual guidelines, not essays, we do strive for consistency. If this article is deleted then at least 3 of the other 6 might also be. And yet several of them have already survived AfDs. So this is an issue of precedent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling of Blossoms Keep and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiniro Mosaic Keep, so rather than citing an essay, please demonstrate that sources you would expect to find for anime are missing for this 1 and only this 1 relative to previous AfD discussions of related articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ONLYESSAY. I did not suggest that otherstuff was a policy, just that it was an argument that holds little merit in deletion discussions. The reason otherstuff exists is because it is a poor argument in a deletion discussion, and attempts to sway the discussion away from the article being discussed. Whether you find it silly or not, it's still a poor argument. And I have already demonstrated that this article is lacking the necessary sources to establish notability. A couple of primary sources from the publisher and a source from ANN that does not even mention Free! do not establish notability. One small news mention about the manga's serialization starting in the magazine does not establish notability.--十八 10:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point me restating my view of that essay. The previous Keep AfDs are relevant to the magazine. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so despite there being other series from that magazine that may have demonstrated notability on their own, that has no bearing on the notability of this article.--十八 07:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Juhachi stated, notability is not inherited from one topic to another. Manga A and Manga B runs in the same magazine. Manga B is notable because it has received a great deal of coverage by reliable sources or won awards, however this has not relationship to Manag A. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:NOTE). There is also no evidence that the subject passes any of the other criteria for notability in WP:BK. Citing other articles does not give a free pass for this subject nor does a discussion on another article's talkpage have any relationship on the notability of this article. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK. This manga would have a better chance if it were released outside of Japan but seeing that it is only in Japan at the moment with sources scarce I would have to say that this one is not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have tried to clean up the article, especially the sources. The Comic Natali piece is an independent RS, and I have found an article [20] on Pia on the controversy over the hiatus that is an unquestionable RS (PIA is a major entertainment news source). I also found one English article on the controversy, though others would have to judge whether that is an RS. Otherwise, I have not found much. It also seems that the e-mail distribution is over, so it is unclear whether this manga will ever return. At this point, there are two good independent RS (maybe 3?), but on a manga that is currently not in publication and only produced one tankobon. I am leaning towards userfying until it can be determined that the manga has resumed publication. Michitaro (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above change to merge to Manga Time Kirara Max magazine article - User:Michitaro thank you for finding more RS. As to Keep or userfy there's no need to userfy,... rather than userfy, merge. I created this to fill a hole after noting it was primary topic for the title in ja.wp. If it fails notability it can be merged to a short paragraph at the bottom of the Manga Time Kirara Max magazine article under the Manga Time Kirara Max manga that do have standalone articles and have already survived AfDs. And maybe some of the others should be merged to paragraphs too? However I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the cover jpg would need to be deleted as no longer a main article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out this !vote because as you have already have another above. You may add additional comments, but you only get one !vote. Also, a merge would be inappropriate as the article on the magazine should be about the magazine itself. However, even the article on the magazine doesn't establish notability and is a candidate for AfD. Just because a few series in the magazine have received significant coverage or have had anime adaptations that received significant coverage, that isn't inherited by the magazine. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, bold and strike fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seventhstyle's statues as a reliable source is very questionable. It appears to be nothing more than a fanblog based on their about page. It also accept articles from outside contributes which indicate they lack any editorial oversight to vet the accuracy of their contents. PIA's article have very brief coverage and doesn't meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG which addresses the topic directly and in detail and is more of a minor news story. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on the Seventhstyle piece. However, you are incorrect about the PIA article. I have participated in well over one hundred AfDs and articles of that length have been considered sufficient. More crucial is whether two RS are sufficient to establish notability. Again, I have my doubts, so I lean towards userfying. Michitaro (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor makes me question said reliable source, but that's for another debate. If all that makes this series notable is that it might have been cancelled due to industry pressure, which cannot even be independently verified, I don't feel that would be enough to justify its own article. Not to mention that the Natalie piece merely on the manga's start would not satisfy "significant coverage" in my view.--十八 01:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not convinced that any of the sources currently cited actually constitute the level of in-depth or reliable coverage required to satisfy the basic notability guidelines at WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, despite a deep search for other reliable sources, I was unable to find much that suggest notability (and my search was in Japanese, but all I was able to find were sites selling the manga). The sources given above, while normally reliable, only appear to be reporting on rumors, and while the standard for notability on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth, in this case, the coverage from those sources are unsubstantiated. Because I can find almost no coverage for this manga outside of those rumors, even in its native Japanese, it pains me to !vote weak delete (weak because, as it was still covered in a reliable source, and I am not discounting the possibility that there could be coverage out there that I may have missed). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G12). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Online Cash Lenders: A great way to kickoff your financial crisis[edit]

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

Procedural AfD. Prod and WP:CSD#G12 tags removed. Copyvio from this page. Prod'ed as an essay/how-to guide before I found the copyvio. While this is great as an infomercial, it is wholly unencyclopedic. Dloh cierekim 06:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 06:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, preferably by CSD G12: the fact that a WP:SPA article creator and a IP remove a Copyvio deletion notice doesn't make it any less a WP:COPYVIO. And that aside it is a WP:POV text which after following the link is intended to drive business to a site. AllyD (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STAAR Surgical Company[edit]

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

Another promotional article by the same editor as the adjacent AfD on a relatively unimportant company. No substantial third party references. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sirona Dental System[edit]

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

Purely promotional article listing all the officers of a routine company. If there is any connection of this American company with the european manufacturers of the original Xray machines in the 19th century, I cannot find it-- they would be notable, of course DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I note that there are no reliable, secondary sources in the article. Much of the information is trivial, while the claims are stupendous. If half of it were true, this company would be a bhousehld name. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 07:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Kloeker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been nominated previously and deleted for notability and conflict of interest. I still believe he fails our general notability guidelines. But, perhaps I'm wrong. I was surprised to not see much secondary coverage about him outside of Guinness. If deleted, I suggest a salt as well. SarahStierch (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or, perhaps you're right, Sarah. I do not believe that simply being listed in the Guinness Book of World's Records establishes notability, as that is their business, and a record listing provides no significant biographical coverage other than the record. I expect more in-depth coverage in completely independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At first I was going to echo the delete vote per WP:1EVENT but then I saw he has 5 world records and was mentioned in the book Ripley's Believe It Or Not and his world records and performances have gotten some minor press. What's missing is a news article or two where he is the feature. I'm not sure about this one.
- Ripley's
- Mountain Press, The (Sevierville, TN) - February 26, 2010, Sword swallowers to perform at Ripley's
- Northerner, The: Northern Kentucky University (Highland Heights, KY) - September 6, 2012, Senior juggles way to world record-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's claims rests solely on Guinness records, which are not enough to support notability. All sources are barely more than mentions of same Guinness record achievements, with no substantiative coverage of the person. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Narimizadeh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted previously for notability concerns. Appears to still be failing notability, however, perhaps sources exist in Persian, etc.. SarahStierch (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, notability not stablished. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Kabirat (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy Delete as A7. Makes no claim to notability. NOTE: I previously speedied the redirect to this. JodyB_talk 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bilgehan Demir[edit]

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

This biographical article was begun a few days ago and almost entirely written by the subject of the article, Bilgehan Demir (as can be seen in the username of the article creator and most frequent editor, Mbdemir76 (talk) and his other account Mbdemir (talk)). The author is a single-purpose editor, for his own article, no less. Furthermore, its notability is questionable; Google searches result in few results.

In fact, this deletion discussion was already started and ended up in the decision to delete before, but in the middle of the discussion, someone moved the page, resulting in only the redirect being deleted, rather than the article itself. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilgehan demir, which resulted in the "delete" decision.

Furthermore, the original author of the article, who is in fact the subject of the article himself (Mbdemir76 (talk)), has brazenly attempted to remove the deletion tags (as well as other de-beautifying template messages) from the page. Before I edited it out, his attempt at an autobiography on Wikipedia included links to his Twitter and Facebook pages at the bottom. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was deleted just a few hours ago. Nothing has changed to make this person notable since. Further action is needed in respect of a blatant disregard for Wikipedia processes. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Ocampo (writer)[edit]

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

Marlon Ocampo Barrantes is a public high school teacher who has published one history book. Unable to find any reliable refs except for the book. Unable to find any refs about his other book, El Carnaval del Diablo y otros cuentos. Mr. Ocampo is the editor of the article. The Spanish Wikipedia page gives slightly more detail. The book cover of his book and job search also gives more. Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 06:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Currently fails Wikipedia:AUTHOR, and I also can't find any reliable refs, for the book or for the writer. Ruby Murray 09:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched on the Spanish-language titles of the 4 books listed in the Spanish wikipedia and found little coverage. -- GreenC 08:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The_Chronicles_of_Narnia_(film_series)#Critical_reception. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response to the Chronicles of Narnia films[edit]

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

Article is nothing more of a "compliation" of prose from other articles, violating WP:NOTDIR. It's basically a list of the "Reception" sections for each of the three films in the series, and does not include any new information that isn't already present (or couldn't be included) in those articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from the film series article:A copycat article of the Harry Potter critical response article which is being nominated for deletion from the same editor. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the film series. Unnecessarily duplicates content from multiple articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As far as I can tell, it's not clear even to most of those who argue for keeping the article what exactly it should be about. The "keep" opinions point out that this combination of words has many Google hits, mentions in the media and suchlike, but that is a weak argument to counter the credible assertion by Coren and Ymblanter that there is no topic with that name in science, and that the various Google hits and mentions in sources refer to a variety of different topics and ideas (which may or may not be individually notable), which makes the article original research by synthesis. Arguments based on the core policy of WP:NOR outweigh arguments based on (asserted) notability. Sandstein 10:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mind–body problem[edit]

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

A combination of non-notable and original research. Non-notable because I can't find a reliable source discussing a concept called "quantum mind-body problem" or something close to it. Original research because while much of the material is fact (or poorly paraphrased fact), the juxtaposition of all of it as a single concept seems to be novel to this article. Also, much of it exists elsewhere in Wikipedia already. Sancho 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Keep and rename "Consciousness causes collapse": Wigner popularized the ~~exact~~ term and the article provides sources for that.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to verify this by following the sources in the article. Could you be specific about which source says this? Sancho 06:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I think you're right... he just used "mind-body problem" for his notorious take on the measurement problem.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the 'background and history' and now you can follow the sources. Alma (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although rambling and not very coherent there are sufficient pop-science sources to keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, most of the article is cited. But to present that material together as a concept of the "quantum mind-body problem" seems like original research, unless there is another source that does so. I can't find one. I can't even find one that presents this concept at all. Sancho 06:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename. There are over 5,000 hits at GScholar for the phrase Quantum "mind-body problem". There are books devoted to the topic, such as, Lockwood, Michael. Mind, brain and the quantum: The compound'I.'. Basil Blackwell, 1989. and Stapp, Henry P. Mind, matter, and quantum mechanics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.. There are articles in reputable journals like Ludwig, Kirk. "Why the difference between quantum and classical physics is irrelevant to the mind/body problem."Psyche 2, no. 16 (1995). and Goswami, Amit. "Consciousness in quantum physics and the mind-body problem." Journal of Mind and Behavior (1990).. This seems like a highly notable topic. The article itself is well-cited in some sections, not so well cited in others. There are some statements that seem like original research and there is probably some synthesis. But per WP:SYNTHNOT, simple juxtaposition is not synthesis. There is some good material in the article, too and the problems it has are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't talk about the quantum mind-body problem. They talk about the mind body problem, and how quantum mechanics supposedly is related, or not related, depending on the source. One of them (Why the difference between quantum and classical physics is irrelevant to the mind/body problem) even takes the position that this is the same as the age-old mind-body problem, and that the quantum aspect doesn't add anything to it. I can't find a source that defines the concept "quantum mind-body problem", let alone one that defines it as presented in this article. How many sources are there for the phrase "quantum mind-body problem"? Sancho 06:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thousands of hits at GScholar and quoted sources above show that the mind-body problem in the context of quantum physics is a highly notable topic and it seems to be the topic of this article. We should have an article on this topic and deletion should be a last resort. If folks don't like the title, we can rename it to something more acceptable. How about Mind-body problem (quantum aspects) or some other alternative? --Mark viking (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I agree that the article should be kept and renamed Mark, but that's a really bad suggestion for the reasons Coren has given.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may need improvement, but the topic is well known in the field. Greg Bard (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate that it is well-known in the field. Sancho 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the "the problem" isn't well-known in the field, it doesn't exist in any field. That there are mind-body problem articles that have the word "quantum" in it is the only thing those supposed google hits demonstrate, and none of the so-called sources named above ever state such. This article is analogous to claiming there is such a thing as the "vector three-body problem" because there are papers about the three-body problem that mention the word "vector". — Coren ^(talk) 14:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you've heard of Consciousness causes collapse which redirects to this article? The article is clearly notable under that title and has a long history...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename This article was renamed to the present title, apparently without discussion, in 2009. (See the article talk page.) It probably should revert to its previous title "Consciousness causes collapse", or something similar, and be appropriately edited. "Consciousness causes collapse" is an interpretation of QM based on ideas of John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner. (See the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Wiki (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Coren Secret ^account 15:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Coren does a much better job of explaining it than I could hope to. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It may be BS, but it is notable BS. The standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that consciousness causes collapse of the wave-function which is part of this article. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard Copenhagen interpretation doesn't imply that. From Copenhagen interpretation, Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function. Sancho 19:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence in the Copenhagen interpretation article appears erroneous. It cites p. 137 of Heisenberg's book Physics and Philosophy, which includes the statement, "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual,' is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." However, earlier in the book, Heisenberg states: "we may say that the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place as soon as the interaction of the object with measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result in the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function, however, takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change in the probability function." Heisenberg confusingly uses of the terms "registration" and "observer" differently in the two statements (which are from two different lectures that he had given). However, from the second (from the lecture titled "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory"), it seems clear that he thinks "consciousness causes collapse" of the wavefunction.J-Wiki (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a garble of a popular interpretation of quantum mechanics and concepts from psychology and philosophy. BlueMist (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit and rename: WP needs to draw a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience. The article should be renamed Consciousness causes collapse and all other content besides that should be deleted or moved to Mind-body problem or pseudoscience articles. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the relevant material is already covered at Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse. Sancho 19:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Sancho, I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, except the part about deleting the article... please notice that each of the individual "interpretation" sections on that page should be a WP:SUMMARY of their main articles. That being said, it strains credibility even to treat this as a reasonable interpretation... certainly not mainstream, but notorious none-the-less.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. In my opinion, a re-name would also require an extensive trimming of the article to include simply the core elements of the interpretation that consciousness causes collapse. Presenting all of the other information in the manner that it currently is presented is original research, regardless of the name of the article. Sancho 20:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clarify. It was implied as counterargument to quantum theory by The Man and stated by Pascual Jordan (Physics today, April 1985, http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/ph135b/Bell-inequalities_v2_r.pdf). It should be refined by clearly stating that this is philosophy or more precisely philosophy of science; since philosophy of science treats as per definition the implications of science and overlaps metaphysics, the article falls under this exact category. It is obvious that this is a common topic for the laymen and we should use this opportunity to clarify that the math works regardless of any interpretations to the subject. There is an entire book which is quoted as reference to the article - Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (Oxford University Press, July 2006) - that treats this subject in this precise manner. I know because I ~~was unfortunate enough to~~ read it. The book is written by two physicists (one a former owner of a physics chair at UC Santa Cruz). I am compelled to say it looks legit. Should anyone be interested on their view on the topic, this page http://quantumenigma.com/controversy states they will try to answer questions from the book's readers and provides their .edu email addresses. I think we can't cross that and still respect NPOV. (talk) Alma 21:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information about Basil Hiley, british q-physicist who received a Majorana prize 2012 and wrote "Can Mind Aﬀect Matter Via Active Information?" (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley/CanMindEffMatterBJHPP05.pdf). The problem seems to be known in the field. Further clarification: the problem is due to the probability wave definition. A system does not have a state but an associated probability wave; there is no naive way of determining whether a particle has intrinsic "properties" or is actually just a probability wave because to determine its properties you need to observe it by measurement. The next problem is the difference between 'observation' - which is made with the eyes - and 'measurement' which is done by intrusive means, like photon bombardment, deep inelastic scattering etc. The philosophy of physics steps in and asks 'what does this mean?';is the result due to 'measurement' or due to 'observation'? ie 'if you would look at the particle (with the eyes), would you see a probability cloud, would you see a collapsed state or there should be a probability cloud but you never get to see it because it collapses when you observe it (again, with the eyes)?'. Measurement and observation are not equivalent. Alma (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Basil Hiley article doesn't talk about anything in the current article. It doesn't mention the mind-body problem at all. It doesn't talk about the necessity or effect of consciousness on the collapse of the wave function. The closest it comes is a discussion in Section 4 proposing possible connections with neuroscience, and mentions none of the material that this Wikipedia article covers. In my opinion, this Basil Hiley article only appears to be related to the content in this Wikipedia article because of its title, but is actually not. I also don't find this topic covered in http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/ph135b/Bell-inequalities_v2_r.pdf. The rest of your position is original research. Sancho 15:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the background and history as there was room for clarification. I can probably improve the entire article should it be kept. I am not sure how can one rigorously prove or disprove the 'original research' issue - there are solid references and other than that I can't comment. I recommend to read all the material in the references before issuing a personal opinion, especially given most of it is available online. To answer one of your objections, the second page of the Physics Today issue features Jordan's literal statement "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it". This subject is also treated in detail in Brian Greene's writings along with connected subjects such as the many world interpretation. Simply stating that the people who treated this topic meant to say something else does not make a valid argument as per Wikipedia's guidelines. I see no mention of the category under which it falls - is that still a problem. I noticed that you edited the page and changed 'observation' with 'measurement' prior to proposing the delete(as you considered the word more neutral according to your comments) thus changing the meaning of a few sentences. There is a clear difference between the two and I mentioned that difference before - let me know if you think of that difference to be original research as well. Alma (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it. I did read this. This is consistent with the standard Copenhagen interpretation and doesn't introduce any "mind-body problem" and does not refer to "consciousness". I have read most of the material and agree that much of this article is well-cited. Many sentences are supported by reference, but their presentation as a unified concept is novel to this article. I changed observation to measurement in those sentences, because that that section was referring to the Copenhagen interpretation. Since this section was unreferenced, I couldn't simply make the wording match the reference, so I made it match the wording at the Copenhagen interpretation article, which prefers "measurement" over "observation" throughout. Sancho 17:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert "Consciousness causes collapse" to a previous version and then redirect the present article to that target. Deletion would likely lead to the Consciousness causes collapse redirect being speedy-deleted by WP:CSD#G8 leaving a red link. That would be wholly unacceptable – see these links to it and more before double redirects were "fixed". How the CCC topic should be handled would be better decided at a talk page than here but this is my opinion. (1) taken exactly and literally the current title is not a topic suitable for WP (I'm not convinced the topic exists). (2) "Consciousness causes collapse" must lead the reader somewhere, either to Interpretations of quantum mechanics#von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse (although a more extended treatment would be preferable) or as a "main" article vaguely along the lines of this 2008 version. I prefer a separate main article, hardly at all like the present one but more like the 2008 one. Thincat (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of QM is notable enough to warrant its own full article, and I agree that reviving an old version of "CCC" is probably a good way to begin. However, pertinent information in the current article, added since 2008, should be transferred to the new "CCC" article, while omitting all the extraneous.J-Wiki (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although I don't like QMBP myself, there may be content worth salvaging. That's why I suggested redirecting QMBP to the revamped CCC article, so keeping stuff in its history for possible merging. AFD is not a good place to be. Thincat (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. If this article is deleted please also redirect Consciousness causes collapse to Interpretations of quantum mechanics#von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse to keep the link blue and to preserve the history (some of which would be highly relevant). I am inviting anyone objecting to this to say so here. Thincat (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note As much of this was caused by the title, the article should definitely be renamed. While I personally disagree with this interpretation and can bring reasonable arguments regarding my position (did the universe tunnel into a state with observers?), I also believe that the public searching for sources on the subject of "consciousness/collapse of the wavefunction" should be properly informed. Should it be kept I offer to trim the article and add relevant information about how the problem is viewed in the present, to clarify and cover all the relevant viewpoints - for example Englert wrote in August this year a comprehensive paper on the modern take (http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5290). This whole thing is however on the very thin line between physics and philosophy so I will appreciate any input as to how it should be treated. Alma (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For me as a quantum physicist this looks like WP:COATRACK. Tiny pieces of certainly notable things are put together and bound by original synthesis.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kantararu Maheshwararu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted for notability. The citations provided read like mere mentions to me, and being the high priest of a religious site doesn't mean you're notable (WP:INHERIT). Perhaps there are other citations in Hindi... SarahStierch (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reason as last time. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Radioman[edit]

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

No detectable indication of notability in the internet whatsoever. Brandmeister^talk 17:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 05:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice just simply lack of any information. DJs are hard to source anyway, much less ones working from the 1990s. Also unusual to have a biography without a real name, only stage names, strongly suggests non-notability. -- GreenC 08:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masyid Al Islam[edit]

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

no references, no claim of notability Tátótát (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 05:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Trust[edit]

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

Absolutely no notability. Candidate for a speedy delete in my opinion. 95.150.248.199 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note This nomination was not processed correctly. I have no opinion as to its merits. Mangoe (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 05:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article is expanded to show that the subject is significnat. It appears to be seeking to raise money to lend on equity-sharing mortgages, a form of finance that has not been popular historically; requiring a large deposit, where borrowers will probably be able to raise finance anyway. It may have some success with over-priced London houses, but I do not see its role elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Rainbow[edit]

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

This Artist does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 05:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; lack of coverage/reviews online. Can't see any evidence he meets any notability criteria. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely autobiography and self-promotion. Citations are invalid and notability is not established. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 07:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralized Autonomous Corporation[edit]

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

Is purely original research. Exists apparently to promote an individual's pet theory, which does not appear in academic literature or reliable sources, and also apparently to promote Bitcoin. No reliable sources exist discussing the page's concept. All the sources that are of reliable origin are of oblique and minimal relevance to the subject. Snouter (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with Snouter's assessment. While the article has issues, I think that it is a real and existing concept that has been explored in fiction, as well as theoretically. While DACs might not currently exist, the concept is hardly a difficult one to grasp, and we shall see them existing in the future. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the concept, but the article's identification and description of the subject is purely WP:ORIG and corresponds to no reliable source. Isaac Asimov's books about robots would not support the creation of an article for 'Intelligent Autonomous Being' with original descriptions of what is necessary and sufficient to constitute such a being. Snouter (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interestingly, I just finished reading WP:ORIGINALSYN and came to the same conclusion myself. Give me a few weeks to find some secondary/academic sources for my pet theory before you delete it. --dbabbitt (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an expert in related fields, I do not believe that such sources exist. The problem with the article is not that it lacks suitable references. The problem is that it is purely the product of original research on the topic. There are sources that discuss the possibility of similar phenomena, but not under this name or classificatory matrix. I should be clear: this is not a criticism of you or of the concept about which you are writing. Snouter (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page assuming that I would eventually find the proper name/classification for this phenomenon and end up with just a redirect for this article. I tried to cover a lot of ground - economic, protocols, business, etc. - in hopes of running into some reliable source. Stan Larimer, the guy who coined this term, says that it didn’t come up on Google before Invictus Innovations first used it, but that is about as useful as having a Wikipedia page on Barney's Bongo Burger just because the chef came up with a unique name. What is the similar phenomenon, pray tell? Autonomous agent? Maybe we can salvage some of the hard work I put into this and move it to another page. --dbabbitt (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ehhhhhh, I really don't see why there is any need to delete this. u:inh is correct. so, please keep, and let's find something more harmful to extirpate. ... jane avriette:talk 14:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very well written article, better than thousands of articles on wikipedia. An article like this should be marked with Template:Refimprove rather than deleted. Testem (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple google search finds 136k results so this is obviously not original research. There is problem of reliable sources and, maybe, bias views, but the article should be kept and annotated with the adequate templates. OriumX (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect factually. A Google verbatim search for the subject in quotation marks finds 45 results. Most are bots that have indexed this page. None are reliable sources. This AfD needs attention from experienced admins because the comments here misunderstand its reasons. Good writing does not support original research's being included in Wikipedia. This well-written article should be moved to userspace until reliable sources exist. Snouter (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the David Johnston white paper a reliable enough source to base an article about decentralized applications on? I'll move this to my userspace and stick to just summarizing to atone for my original syn. --dbabbitt (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whitepaper has not been published or covered by a reliable source (Bitcoin News Feed would not be considered an RS) and so would not be sufficient to establish notability of the subject.Dialectric (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated, this is original research, which is not allowed.--Citing (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article admits it is "currently being developed". Wait until it is both developed and noticed by some independent source beside the person promoting it before it has an entire article. In English only proper nouns are capitalized, and thus from the capital letters this seems one very specific entity (or else is not written correctly). For that matter, the article on His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston does not mention this topic, so perhaps it is a different one (the blog author claims to be from New Orleans, Louisiana?). This generally looks dubious. W Nowicki (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. The author's user page includes the following: "The 'game' of Wikipedia is to get your crackpot theories and daring new analyses to survive page edits long enough to become established as part of the conventional wisdom. (This is a lot easier to do with text than it is with images. It takes real work and lots of political maneuvering to get creative images to stick.) Here are some tips: ..." 173.169.152.156 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It pains me to say this: I am a fan of the concept, proud member of the bitcoin community, and advocate of some of the ideas that the article brings up, but you can't escape the facts of the issue. Another user mentioned thousands of search results for "Decentralized Autonomous Corporation" but if you ignore results from the last few months, only 160 results show up, mostly forum links and redirects to the few actual articles by bitcoiners. While the idea intriuges me (as it should anyone), it's not fair to have a wikipedia article about it until either more actual academic (economic/political) experts discuss it formally, or until such ideas are implemented in the real world and described by some credible news organization. The mere existence of bitcoin and it's description in the press doesn't count because it is not a corporation as such. Rustyfence (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Synthesis/OR as discussed above, and a borderline neologism- term has no use in academic scholarship or RS, and almost no use at all, as mentioned above, apart from the whitepaper which appears to have originated the concept and the pieces in bitcoin magazine by Vitalik Buterin which are not sufficient to establish the notability of this concept.Dialectric (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep. I'm working on creating a DAC wiki explaining its significance. The DAC concept is part of a broader movement to create a distributed/decentralized web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.74.67 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to keep an article. 173.169.152.156 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vakas Siddiqui[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously nominated and deleted. Appears to still fail our general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing here that even hints at notability. Worth noting that all edits to this article have been by Vakassiddiqui. Emeraude (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Pure vanity page. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A lot of arguments to avoid in this discussion on both sides. Ultimately, there was nothing to suggest the scale of this event was so historically significant that this individuals role in it warranted a stand alone article. BLP1E specifically addresses this and no major arguments were made against why that policy does not stand in this case. Further this person has not been the direct subject of major publications other than those covering the event. Mkdw ^talk 02:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Odjegba Okene[edit]

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

PROD declined. Subject fails WP:BLP1E. IF the mentioned coverage and documentaries actually come to pass, he MIGHT become notable at a future time. But at this time he clearly fails "one event." Safiel (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fleeting notoriety, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We will just have to create it again later anyway, use common sense. This story is everywhere. 88.193.85.124 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An unconvincing threat from the IP editor. WP:CRYSTAL is no reason to keep an article on a minor "celebrity". WWGB (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such condescending. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to help. Sometimes common sense trumps bureaucracy. 88.193.85.124 (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree this is a clear-cut case. Maybe we could have an article about the shipwreck. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A general article about the shipwreck/event might be warranted, but BLP1E pretty much excludes an article on the subject. Safiel (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E....William 17:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of shipwrecks in 2013#26 May, a low-profile person, per WP:BLP1E (applies If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.) . Alex^{discussion ★} 02:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is perhaps a case to be made that the event is notable. The individual pretty clearly is not. Carrite (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widespread coverage of the rescue as of 12/9. It matters little whether the "event" (of the shipwreck + rescue) or the individual is notable: in either case it is deserving of an article under notability standards, and the name of the lone rescued survivor is probably the most natural article title. Robert K S (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable based on widespread media attention. Everyking (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. May be reassessed at a later day. Mkdw ^talk 04:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Two months have passed since this occurred; it's abundantly clear now that there was no lasting effect and that this was just a case of something only notable the day it happened. Beerest 2 talk 21:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As much as I would like to see it gone, I think this AfD may be a bit early. There is still current news related to the shooting here, here, and here. - Mr X 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Either keep, or redirect to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2013 with history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely high profile, notable incident. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT no lasting significance demonstrated in the article or even claimed. LGA _talk^edits 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as not notable. Barely involves the Capitol. Can be merged into another article. Perhaps an article summarizing all these related events???—GoldRingChip 13:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – "Two [whole!] months have passed [without] lasting effect" is humorously circular reasoning, but saying that it's an event that's "only notable the day it happened" is empirically false: anyone can search the news for "Miriam Carey" and find continuous, in-depth coverage by diverse sources for virtually every single day up to the present. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Like all such killings, litigation will go on for years to come and that will occasionally be reported upon. Of course, that is not what is meant by "lasting influence", which this unfortunate event in no way had. --Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the articles linked to by SteveStrummer. There is coverage of this event months after the event has happened. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the fact that it is too early since the last AfD as the nominator should have known. It is still too early to say if this had any long going effects etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It is still too early to say if this had any long going effects etc." Meaning: it's still too early to say whether this is going to become notable in future... --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No meaning that it is notable now for being a recent event which received alot of coverage as well. Lets wait and see if that is sustained. And please dont put words in my mouth.. thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't want to put words in your mouth, just give my interpretation of your argument. As I understand it, you are arguing that the event is notable at this moment, but if it doesn't continue to have coverage, it may not be notable any more at some point in the future. I have two comments on that, 1/ notability is not temporary and 2/ "continued coverage" is absolutely not the same thing as lasting effects. As far as I can see, your arguments fly into the face of policy. --Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least for now, per WP:PERSISTENCE. Cavrdg (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per SteveStrummer, BabbaQ, and Cavrdg. Coverage has been ongoing in the past few months, and the "this was the year that was" coverage has come up again. We really won't have much perspective for another year. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 07:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete's RV Center[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "There is sufficient here to pass speedy deletion, a route already declined, but there is insufficient notability for this company to pass the threshold for the article to remain here. If notability can be shown and verified then it may remain"

There have been additions of source. However, the sources appear to be a mixture of unreliable sources and passing mentions in other sources. It fails on the WP:RS front. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated with more specifics on magnitude of sales, along with further sources to verify the scope of Pete's RV Center. This is a niche market company that does a significant amount of business and is known across the US and throughout many of the Canadian provinces. This page is informative about the history of the company, is relevant to recreational vehicles, family businesses, camping and more.Delia.coche (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Delia.coche (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been further updated with more news and other sources. Comparable companies have been wiki-linked within the article. Dealership ranking in extended warranty sales added. One source addition verifies rise in Canadian customers. Sales magnitude and ranking, history, connection to other organizations establishes further notability.Delia.coche (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC) — Delia.coche (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:Company. I see the usual social media stuff and business listing stuff. I don't see any mentions in regional or national media. Sources given in the article are industry journals or local media. Safiel (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I've been on the fence about this article, but I think the sources are mostly trivial mentions, local publications and some narrow scope publications, the totality of which cause me to lean toward delete. - Mr X 11:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge suggestions can be dealt with through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Monsters[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Ultra Series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Wikia if at all possible. Lots of precedents for deleting Ultra monster page including Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ultraman_Leo_monsters, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ultraman_Taro_monsters, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ultra_Q_monsters, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ultraman_Mebius_monsters, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ultraman_Max_monsters, all of which were either deleted or merge/redirected to this article, Sadads (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge: Giant monsters are the main attraction for the Ultraman franchise, considering how gigantic the franchise is (I have seen every major entry) a list is needed to track which monsters appear in which shows and movies. The list is organized enough so general readers can look up information on these monsters by series and episode. It is better to contain it all in one article than fill lists in every Ultra series and movie (which in and of itself is quite time consuming). Yapool Seijin (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merging would seem less than ideal. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Other users would be able to contribute more to the information about these monsters. Smartyfrank (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MV Bni Nsar[edit]

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

Seemingly un-notable boat. Benboy00 (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - for a start, it's not a "boat", but an 76,000 GT ship. Ships of this size are generally able to meet WP:GNG, with sources easily found. One questions whether or not the instructions were followed before nominating this article, which needs improvement, not deletion. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggesting a snow keep when no-one else has voted, and when you yourself havent yet looked for any sources, seems kindof silly. One questions whether or not the instructions for WP:SNOW were followed before nominating this article. Benboy00 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to look, it's yours as nominator. For info, see WP:SHIPS/AFD for previous ship-related AFDs. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is your job, however, to have some sort of idea what you're talking about when you vote. There may very well be hundreds of sources, and this ship may be world famous. Just saying "these sorts of things are generally notable" without having any idea if this one is notable or not and then using this as the basis for a snow close is, like i said, silly. Also like i said, voting snowball before any other votes is very silly. When you looked at that page you linked, did you see the snowball closes? When you clicked on them, were any of them one vote long? Benboy00 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I try to avoid throwing snowballs, I have to admit that we do have a pretty good track record at WP:SHIPS when it comes to articles of large ships being nominated for deletion because someone saw them as "seemingly un-notable"... Tupsumato (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, but throwing a snowball (before any other votes are cast) and then accusing the nom (me) of not looking for sources seems like a step to far. As it happens I did check for sources, and all I found were things like shipping registers and ship trackers, which dont seem to help with notability. Benboy00 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I checked the career summary from Fakta om Fartyg (which I do not consider to be a reliable source in itself), but didn't look for news articles of the incidents. Tupsumato (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benboy, I do know what I'm on about. I've written more ship articles and lists than I care to count. As you've got the IMO Number now, why not do another search using the vessel's name/former names and the IMO Number. That should prove to you that this ship is capable of sustaining an article. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The vessel in question (IMO 7236335) seems to have a long and colorful career with at least two fires (engine room in 2006, smoke stack in 2010). The article needs a lot of improving, though. Tupsumato (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very few google hits, and no google news articles. Am I doing something wrong with my searches? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fakta om Fartyg, The Ferry Site, Matteo Fasce's webpage on the ship, Marine Marchande. Also article on the ship on fr: and it: Wikis. Mjroots (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also find an entry from Equasis. However, these sources are problematic because you can find such information from practically every ship, even the ones who definitely fail to meet the notability guidelines. I tried to look for news about the two fires, but came up nothing at least in English. A professional publication could have an article about the conversion, though, and some 70s magazines could have articles about the delivery of the ship. Tupsumato (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Seemingly non-notable" 76,000-ton ship? No, not really. Sufficient data found above to establish notability; WP:GHITS are irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a 76,000 GT ship. The actual gross tonnage is 14,015. Tupsumato (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even at 14,000, the point stands. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there are many thousands of >10,000 GT ships. Does this mean we should have articles on all of them? I just dont get why being big makes something notable. Surely we should judge a ship by its coverage, and not by its mass (except where its notability is mainly due to its mass (i.e. tiny/huge)). Benboy00 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper; why shouldn't we have articles on them? WP:N is just a guideline. WP:V is policy. Satisfying V should, for certain subjects, be more than enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

V is certainly not "more than enough". Wikipedia should not be a mass of unnotable information, as stated in the link above. Indeed, it even says "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" which pretty much directly opposes your point. I would be happy to have a discussion about sources, but just saying "This thing is notable because it is big" does not really seem like a statement founded in policy. Benboy00 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and sources already identified... also additional ref at midilibre.fr. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This ferry has been around a long time under a number of names. As Mjroots indicates such ships are notable because people are interested in them. Sources may be thin now, but there will be more which are not on line. As with many subjects in Wikipedia, these articles are not for everyone but nothing is served by deleting things that we do not ourselves care about. --AJHingston (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a ship with an interesting (and notable) career. —Diiscool (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons noted above, though one might say an infamous later "career" with a number of publicized violations. Palmeira (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phantom Blood. No sourced content to merge. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Joestar[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phantom Blood DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Phantom Blood. The character section on the article is very brief and should give more details about each character and their roles in the plot. Details from the article would help flesh things out. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phantom Blood. I want to say delete but I'd rather say redirect even though it has no sources. There is nothing notable about this character so again I would redirect to Phantom Blood. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Diamond Is Unbreakable. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josuke Higashikata[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diamond Is Unbreakable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diamond Is Unbreakable. The character section on the article is very brief and should give more details about each character and their roles in the plot. Details from the article would help flesh things out. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore torretti[edit]

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

There are no independent reliable sources to establish notability of this person. Just his official personal web page is cited. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe even a CSD under G11 (I know an A7 was just declined). No real evidence of notability in the article or a Google search; just a few pieces here and there, where one of his works happens to be in an online gallery. Part of the article seems to be a direct rip of a translation of [21], by the way - but nowhere near close enough for it to count as an unambiguous copyright infringement. Mind you, it's even closer to a direct rip of a translation of the source in the article... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete quite a few hits in google books for a Salvatore Torretti- published in the 1800s so they are not about this guy. Nothing of substance found about the current ST. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Big 5[edit]

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

It seams like this concept does not have enough coverage to prove its notability. Anyway, the article is 90% about five animal species which already have articles about them. There is no need for separate article on this topic. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to looking a lot like advertisement for the travel company that coined the phrase, the article describes a neologism and fails to cite sources independent of the local tourist industry. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Marine Big 5" is quickly becoming a recognized term for the gathered goup of these 5 species of marine animals found in Gansbaai. It doesn't have anything to do with the company that "coined" the term, but rather the attraction that this unique congregation of animals provide. We are simply trying to spread the word about these animals that together form this unit, like African Big 5.GB Explore (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's mentioned in a few touristy websites, but there's not coverage in reliable authoritative sources, and it's only of limited local use in one particular town (the article mentions it's a "patented" term - does this mean it's a trade mark?). If proper references can be found it might be mentioned in Gansbaai as a local tourist attraction. But this is not currently a notable concept. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobibase (Connected TVs)[edit]

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

This article seams like an advertisement to me, but i'm not sure whether it should be speedy deleted, so I'm putting it on discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Could not find any sources that were not self-published, therefore can't establish notability. --Drm310 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bungeling Empire[edit]

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

I have serious concerns whether this passes WP:GNG as required by notability guidelines for fictional topics. The few refs in the article don't appear reliable, and/or don't discuss the topic in any depths other than in passing; I cannot find anything better in Google Books or in the web (sure, there are some passing mentions, but nothing suggesting this concept had any verifiable impact on our society). If anyone would like to argue this should be kept, please show us which reliable sources discuss this concept in depth, thus satisfying GNG. As it stands, at best I can see this article redirected to Bungeling Empire trilogy, which could be a disambig pointing to the entries on the Category:Bungeling Empire trilogy (an ORish title, but we can probably ignore it...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG as the topic of multiple, independent, reliable in-depth sources. Seems like a case of WP:NOTINHERITED outside the parent games. And given how much info is available, no WP:SPLIT from them is warranted either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)--109.49.167.63 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's the Japanese Wikipedia article... I see stuff much less notable who are still "surviving". But I (random IP) am neutral. Article needs attention from an expert. Redirecting the page sounds fair enough though. --109.49.167.63 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true we have articles that are not notable and we don't have articles that are notable (by Wikipedia's guidelines). However, this reflects very little on this article, as we establish notability for each article individually. As an IP your argument is no more and no less significant than anyone else's. It is the merit of the argument that forms consensus. In this case, the nominator's rationale is that the topic in question does not pass WP:GNG. It could be easily refuted by presenting reliable independent in-depth sources, however there don't appear to be any at this time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't enough here for a dedicated article. If anything, it may be worth a one-sentence mention in the Brøderbund article, but only if a reliable source can replace the unreliable user-generated Giant Bomb wiki ref. Alternatively, it could go in the Bungeling Bay article, but as it stands there isn't significant coverage on the specific fictional organization in a video game reliable sources search. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. I also wouldn't be opposed to Piotrus's disambig page idea, but I currently prefer deletion. czar ♔ 18:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a single decent source for a Broderbund mention, if it fits anywhere in the article: [22]. Still nothing else useful/reliable for a merge, though. czar ♔ 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following two relistings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry J. Hendrix[edit]

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

Article created, apparently, by the PA office of the subject's employer. No sign of notability, nor any references for the man's biography. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. We should decide whether the position he occupies is notable first. I have blocked the article creator, but I'm not sure about the article yet. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, so even if the position is notable, the man need not be. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews.Nautical Research Journal, Journal of America's Military Past, Naval War College Review, JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly, International Journal of Maritime History, American Historical Review, Journal of American History, Journal of Military History. There are probably more these are for one of his three books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I am the article creator for the biogrpahy page for Henry Hendrix who is the Director of the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC). Similar pages already exist for every previous NHHC director. My understanding is that the page I created on Capatain Hendrix is in dispute because the account under which I created the page appears tied to the organization rather than myself. As directed, I have created a new account (wpaultaylor). What is the next step in the process of clearing the dispute to the page? Although I've often referred to wikipedia, I am new to it as an editor and am obvisouly having difficulty navigating it. I have verified that the data contained in the page is accurate and believe I have presented it in a neutral manner. I want to make sure I'm operating in accordance with the rules, so please let me know what the next step is. Thanks! -- Wpaultaylor (talk) 21:44, 03 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a historian per WP:AUTHOR for his book Theodore Roosevelt's Naval Diplomacy. Article needs a rewrite to be less promotional and resume-like. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Young[edit]

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

As I said before, this person seems pretty non notable. He has a salsa website, which gives information about salsa dancing in one part of san francisco. He's been in some salsa competitions (although apparently not won any). Locally notable, perhaps, but definitely not notable on a wiki scale. Benboy00 (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about running your own dance studio and doesn't appear to be a notable competitive dancer. Also not sure why he's considered a sportsperson.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable about this person. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 07:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Railways Cup[edit]

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

PROD removed with the reason of "good known tournament, plz start a full discussion." I disagree, and believe the original PROD rationale of "non-notable friendly competition, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid. Giant Snowman 12:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No reason to delete this article. Big coverage in Russian media. Usual annual tournament with strong clubs participating (Real, Milan, PSV, Chelsea, Sevilla). Six interwikies. Similar notability as for other 2013 friendly tournaments. NickSt (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EANP. NickSt (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the article itself doesn't establish notability, I believe that this tournament is on the same level as other friendly-tournaments like the Emirates Cup or the Amsterdam Tournament, and that this tournament should have received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG when looking at the teams that have participated. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet GNG. Only link is to the official site which did not open for me anyway. Eldumpo (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – reason to keep has been offered as "no reason to delete", but per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the contributor to prove notability, not on others to disprove it. Over two weeks have passed in this discussion without any such offering. The fact is that there is no evidence to suggest sufficient notability. C 679 15:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article with six interwiki. 194.50.51.252 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. it could've been closed as a delete & redirect but since neither Izno nor Thibbs provided a target for their redirect !vote, I'll leave it up to them to recreate & redirect to their target of choice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.BLP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete because:

The subject of this article lacks notability
The article constitutes of nothing but original research because basically, it exposes trade secrets of Blizzard Entertainment
Because these original researches are achieved through reverse engineering the Blizzard games in violation of its license agreement, they are either software piracy or fair use; in case of the latter, WP:NFCC does not allow us to publish this info in OR form.

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the concerns raised last time, I actually don't know why it wasn't deleted then. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I guess the nomination says it all. This is unverifiable original research. They IP concerns are also problematic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure OR. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I don't think we are running into "trade secret" territory here, given that it has been online for years and is not truly verifiable without original research and is of questionable notability, it may be best to delete it rather than merge it if the case is going to be made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just a clarification: Hollywood glamor around the word "secret" notwithstanding, "trade secret" is just another word for "proprietary"; in other words "not open-source". Sorry, movie goers, but real world is sometimes bland. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "trade secret" does not mean proprietary information. It does means proprietary and non-public information. My corporate course on IP was quite clear on that. Given how public this file format is, it ceased to be a trade secret a long time ago. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fine distinction indeed. Thanks Still, I don't know whether I need to edit my nomination, because if it is OR, then it is at least attempted exposure of trade secrets if not the exposure itself. Meanwhile, as long as the games are short of freely licensed, the WP:NFCC concerns remains valid. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proprietary still doesn't quite cover what it actually means — the file format could be a trade secret without being proprietary (though most such things are proprietary...). I wouldn't call it OR in the sense that Wikipedia uses it. The information in this case was originally published elsewhere rather than here (and the page includes what is basically a general reference). I'm not sure that NFCC is an issue here either.... However, any which way, WP:N and WP:NOTGUIDE are completely fine reasons to redirect or delete the article. --Izno (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable file format. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merging for lack of notability. I explicitly reject comments 2 and 3 made by the nominator as deletion rationale. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merge per Izno. The nom's badfaith characterization of the article as trade secret exposure notwithstanding, there is little question that GNG is not met in this case. Rather than couching it in terms of misappropriation, I'd suggest that the article is simply too detailed and that it falls on the wrong side of WP:NOTGUIDE. (Also: obligatory.) -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see nominator's assessment as follows:

Correct. Articles that lack notability are deleted.
Correct. Wikipedia:No original research says "Wikipedia articles must not contain ... material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." That entails deleting such contents.
Incorrect. While NFCC applies to all sorts of published material including video game formats, this clause is redundant because this angle is covered by WP:NOR. If the WP:NOR issue is resolved, i.e. some publisher succeed in printing about said format, the copyright issue is assumed to have been automatically resolved. You might argue that we still cannot include those data. I say, yes, but again that angle is covered by policy on no excessive quotation (a copyright policy) and WP:NOT. This clause would have applied on a Wikimedia Foundation project that accepted OR but had NFCC too.

Basically, there was no need to bring NFCC and trade secret issues into this discussion. This material, even if super-well-sourced, belong in WikiBooks, not Wikipedia anyway. While we are at it, User:Izno must avoid statements such as "nom's badfaith [sic] characterization" and assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by being wrong or having a different opinion. Fleet Command (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was Thibbs. --Izno (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To explain what I meant by "badfaith [sic] characterization", the nom has suggested that this article presents legal problems (IP infringement) and further that the article's writer was himself (via WP:OR) the source of the allegedly infringing material. I see no evidence that the material is original research (instead I see evidence that it comes from archive.org and several non-RS sources) and I see no evidence that this article exposes trade secrets. I would say that the nom should avoid making such alarmist claims unless evidence for them is provided. The reason to remove this material is because it is overly detailed and non-notable, not because the article's writer(s) have engaged in violations of IP law. -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to George McGovern. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa McGovern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As far as I can see it, every detail in this article apart from the exact date in June of her birth is covered in the article for her father George McGovern. There was no need to split this article out. HornetMike (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. This is pretty much a textbook case of that situation. Carrite (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - long profiles in major news outlets including the Washington post and The New York Times satisfy separate notability concerns. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George McGovern. Not independently notable; her life was tragic but not especially unusual, and it wouldn't be covered by the media if it wasn't for her father. Normally being subject of a full-length book would meet WP:BIO but if that book is written by your father it can't be considered an independent source. (I suggest a redirect because she or the Teresa McGovern Center may be a plausible search term; I have no opinion on the center's notability.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Colapeninsula here. --Glaisher [talk] 10:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources WP:GNG. Book, newspaper articlesWashington Post Desert News many more. Although the book is by her father, the book is notable on its own terms easily meeting NBOOK (multiple reviews), it's hard to see how a book could be notable but the subject of the book not be. WP:INHERIT is for arguments to avoid during an AfD, no one has made the argument of inheritance, the INHERIT essays does not censor or invalidate actual sources, only arguments made during AfD. Ultimately this can be kept simply by renaming to Terry: My Daughter's Life-and-Death Struggle with Alcoholism and adding 3 or 4 book reviews, but prefer to keep a standard biography as it will allow adding new information that appeared after the book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Nothing here to merge. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SOFTDELETE. Mkdw ^talk 02:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kraj potoka bistre vode[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination for deletion of non-notable song in foreign language with no verifiable reliable citations. KDS4444^Talk 17:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redundant to material covered elsewhere. L Faraone 07:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response to the Harry Potter films[edit]

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

Article is nothing more of a "compliation" of prose from other articles, as in WP:NOTDIR. It's basically a list of the "Reception" sections for each of the eight films in the series, and does not include any new information that isn't already present (or couldn't be included) in those articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the individual articles per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The only part of this article that seems remotely justified is the claim "Overall, the series' eight films have generally received very positive reviews and acclaim from critics. However, opinions of the films generally divide book fans, with some preferring the more faithful approach of the first two films, and others preferring the more stylised character-driven approach of the later films"--which is unsourced. —Noiratsi (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't care much about this article anyway even though I am the creator. In the discussion of Harry Potter (film series) and the discussion page of this article's page you can see the origin of why it was created. Then to find out all that material in the film series is redundant to each other film's article. They never really should have been on the film series article in the first place. I am actually surprised that it took now for an AFD to happen. Although I do believe the article can be constructive. All it needs to be rewritten on how the particular critics feel about individually. (Not being divided in sections) Then I would think it would not only be a fine but also Good article worthy. So I am not going to say delete (or keep for that matter) because I think the article has potential. I just think it is written the wrong way. Saying the same stuff from the other articles is just not the right answer. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment. Let me elaborate on what I mean. Let's take away all the sections about the particular film series and make them about a certain notable critic's opinion who reviewed all the movies (for example: Roger Ebert). Let's make a section about what that critic thinks about each movie comparingly instead of dividing the movies on section. If we can do that then I do believe the article can and will be constructive. I hope you understand what I mean. I wish I could have time to show you personally but I don't RIGHT NOW. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the material is already in the articles in the individual films (sometimes slightly differently formatted, but differences in content are minimal) so no merge is required. The films were for the most part reviewed separately as separate films: it makes sense to keep that structure. Most film series are handled with a critical response section in the article for each of the individual films so we should be consistent (there is Critical response to the Chronicles of Narnia films and Critical response to Star Trek; but the former covers films and the latter every media, so they're not consistent either). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good point that I hadn't thought of... as you point out, the films were reviewed individually, meaning attempts to discuss the critical reception of the series as a whole might count as original research. —Noiratsi (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator:If you want to (since I am the original creator of the title) I would probably just speedy merge it myself or let anyone else boldly merge it and the problem would be solved with this article. As for the other articles I would AFD the Narnia one and maybe the Star Trek one too. I also support a ~~merge~~ redirect to Harry Potter (film series)#Critical response over delete so we can avoid red links. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there's any content here to merge, which is why I nominated the article in the first place. Like Colapeninsula said above, all the content is already in each of the respective articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant redirection....not merge the content in this article. I am pretty sure the original voter meant the same too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only point I see to a redirection is if you think that users will actually still use this link or search for it on here. I guess we could redirect it to Harry Potter (series)#Reaction. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I just know there is links of this page on other pages and I still think it's better not as a redlink or as deleted history. Also I think you mean Harry Potter (film series)#Reaction. Correct? If so that's where I meant as well. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. It seems to me that it's not really linked in any other articles, but rather just part of the {{Harry Potter}} template, so removing it from the template would avoid any red link issues if it was deleted. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to film series. I agree that it's a redundant content fork. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let It Burn LP[edit]

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

Non notable album. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Label website is not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vesna Hocevar[edit]

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

Dubious notability, the biography has been written by the spouse; should be reviewed by an independent person. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent, substantial coverage seems to be almost nonexistent. Boogerpatrol (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anno Mortiri Domini[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS Glaisher [talk] 10:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gurren Lagann mecha[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Gurren Lagann. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to brief descriptions on the character list and Wikia. TTN (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No indication of real world importance. Suggest transwikifying to gurren lagan wikia (http://gurrenlagann.wikia.com/wiki/Tengen_Toppa_Gurren_Lagann_Wiki). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessive unsourced in-universe fancruft. Reyk _YO! 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who are we to decide what has "real world importance"? Calling somthing WP:FANCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. That seems non-NPOV. Has a number of primary source refs. The one secondary source is, however, questionable as RS. In any case, they don't actually need to be notable per WP:FICT#Lists of fictional elements. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable in-universe list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment Please keep in mind that WP:INUNIVERSE is only a guideline. While it is a valid reason to edit an article, it is not in and of itself a reason to delete one. Yes, this article needs a copy edit to change some verb tenses and reword a few sentences per WP:INUNIVERSE. What I don't understand is why the goal is deletion instead of improvement? VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced information to List of Gurren Lagann characters and delete the rest, no sense having references going to waste. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Home Drive[edit]

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

I was going to clean this up, but this is simply not a notable club. In addition, it's got a bunch of vanispam in there (some of which already removed). Delete per GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears not to have received enough coverage to establish notability; mentioned in passing in a NYTimes article. The article here was apparently written by the organization's founder, whose contributions at this site have integral promotional and COI issues. JNW (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Godzilla vs. Megalon. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Jaguar[edit]

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

With only a supporting role in one entry in the franchise, this character does not appear to be independently notable from the movie Godzilla vs. Megalon Sven Manguard Wha? 03:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect unless sources establishing notability can be provided. TTN (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Kaiju such as this from this franchise could be merged into one article of monsters with only one or two appearances. Yapool Seijin (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Godzilla vs. Megalon. No independent notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In the end I do not feel that there were enough strong reliable sources to warrant GNG or ANYBIO. Several claims about best-selling and awards were not substantiated as noteworthy or existing. If anything there appears to be a stronger argument about an article about his technique than the person himself but even then the number of sources where his technique were the primary focus of the publication were few. Mkdw ^talk 03:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Newton (hypnotist)[edit]

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

The article has been around for five years but no-one has managed to add evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hey RHaworth, there is a reason why evidence of notability hasn't been added to the article. He isn't notable. I was unable to find any coverage of this individual in reliable independent sources, though he is discussed in unreliable fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy appears to be a non-notable hypnotherapist. If nothing has come up in 5 years, I don't see it changing anytime soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is indeed notable ~~if not as a hypnotist according to Wiki policy~~, then as an author, since both his books Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls are bestsellers translated to over 25 languages.Hepcat65 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Author applies to his work as an hypnotist too, it redirects to Creative Professionals where point #2 says: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Newton is famous for having developed LBL = life between life therapy in the regression hypnotism field, this new technique has a significant following. :Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Hepcat65 (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hepcat65 (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Agree with Hepcat65. In addition, he is the founder of a school of past-life regression hypnotherapy with a world-wide reach -- over 30 countries. He is the subject of a book and documentary film. --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In 2001 he was a winner of the annual Independent Publishers Book Award for Destiny of Souls. He has also been on many TV and radio talk shows. Some of these interview recordings can be found online. This third party award should suffice.AlexGWU (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being interviewed in various places does not confer notability. Winning a promotional, indiscriminate non-notable book award does not confer notability. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_Publisher_Book_Award_(2nd_nomination)#Independent_Publisher_Book_Award. Which best-seller list has his books been on, and where has consensus been established that this confers notability? Where are the citations to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Agree with Cullen, award not notable, interviews don't convey notability, claim of bestseller not supported. Where are the reliable sources with articles about this world wide research school? Has any of this research been published in peer reviewed journals? Any of his books reviewed by peer reviewed journals or significant reviewers? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The publisher Llewellyn Worldwide lists Journey of Souls as having sold "over 400,000" copies and Destiny of Souls as having sold "over 200,000" copies here. This bio also lists Newton as having received a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Selling "X" number of books does not confer notability and we don't call a book a "best seller" based on promotional claims by the publisher, which specializes in fringe topics. Holding a PhD degree most certainly does not confer notability and we don't even know which institution conferred the degree. See WP:ACADEMIC. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and no one has yet been able to produce it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What constitutes a reliable independent award or a prize? IPBA is an industry known award. Thanks..AlexGWU (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I suggest that you start by reading the deletion discussion linked above, paying special attention to those who recommended deleting the article on the award. Notable awards are those that receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If the award is only discussed in detail by the awarding organization, and by people who have won the award and their close associates, then the award is not notable and winning it doesn't confer notability. Awards that allow self-nomination are also suspect. Awards that have a large number of subcategories, and combine highly notable winners with obscure winners are also suspect, as this may be a case of promotionalism by association. If someone creates an award for "the world's greatest scientists", and then gives it to Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and some guy who claims the ability to talk to people's past lives, then that is not a credible award, despite the indisputable notability of the first two scientists. Every industry has awards. The vast majority, including this one, are run-of-the-mill back slapping, and do not confer notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Point taken! thanks for clarifying, however common sense suggests that an award presenting outfit which has been around since 96 and each year thousands of publishers, (some of which are prestigious university presses such as Princeton, Yale etc.) apply to enter in their annual contests by actually paying them an entrance fee must have established a reasonable level of reliability and credibility amongst such an internationally large community. That is a fact; regardless of the outfit's objectives of promotional/commercial nature. Next, Here is a link to a 2008 deletion request for Michael Newton's article which was overturned 'cause the article survived until now.AlexGWU (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The fact that publishers pay a fee to enter is a point against the notability of the award. We call that a "pay to play" award. Nobody pays to get considered for a Nobel Prize, a Pulitzer Prize, an Order of the British Empire or a Presidential Medal of Freedom. The fact that this article has stayed around for several years is not a convincing argument to keep it. We have nearly 4.4 million articles, and I have no doubt that many thousands ought to be deleted. We consider them one at a time, the time for this one is now, and no one has produced significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Have they? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response You missed my point or too much info in my paragraph was not fully processed. Let me say it in a different way. When a large community of international publishers are chasing after receiving such an award, by what authority or qualification can one claim such an award is not reliable? no one can 'cause the sheer volume of such actions make it reliable by default. It indicates people and publishers trust that establishment's processes. Also remember we are not talking about literary awards here. These are focused on works for originality, new concepts and the sort. The fact that this article had a deletion request reversed is pretty substantial. On your other point, I definitely agree with you that there are a lot of articles worthy of deletion and would gladly help to clean them up.AlexGWU (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just as a note, if an award is notable it is covered by reliable sources like notable book reviews, newspaper and magazine articles etc. If a book is notable in a field the journals of that field usually review it. If a school of theory or technique is of note it is covered by journals and books in the field. If a teaching institution is of note it is covered by journals, newspapers and books.- - MrBill3 (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article requires notability not the award. The award must be verifiable and reliable to establish notability for the article and it does. See Wiki Guidlines on notability WP:GNG

Response The subject of the WP article requires notability as in, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The source does not provide significant coverage it simply lists a book by the subject as winning one of 50 awards given to a field of 770. The source states nothing more about the subject or the book. The notability guidelines you cited also state, "Sources should be secondary". This source is primary, it is the organization bestowing the award not an independent RS reporting on the award. The GNG goes on to explain, "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity" The source is a press release for an award that is nothing more than a promotion for book publishers. The coverage is not significant, the source is not secondary, the whole thing is a promotional activity, there is no indication it was not short term. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So far notability is supported by being subject of book and documentary. Is there any evidence the book and documentary are notable or significant? No other publication discussing the subject or his "school". No research published by subject or his "school". No evidence of notability of subject's books (best seller lists, reviews in notable publications, use as references in publications, etc.) award not notable (no reportage in notable publications, etc). If subject is famous for developing technique where is the evidence? I maintain my position delete. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is no study or evidence in journals and magazines denying or disproving his technique either. The field about this side of the human condition is relatively very new and its only recently that it is being more and more researched and gaining interest within the scientific community. AlexGWU (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. This provides no evidence of notability, no study or evidence in journals and magazines shows a distinct lack of notability. Something new should be included in an encyclopedia only if it is notable. Who has reported on, discussed or even mentioned this technique or theory? Where is the "more and more" research? Where is the evidence of any interest in the scientific community? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The independent source (in this case IP awards) for the article requires to be reliable and verifiable which it is. It does not need to be notable.AlexGWU (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response The independent source is required to state that the subject of the article is notable. I didn't see that in the source. All I saw was that a book authored by the subject won an insignificant award. Where is notability established by this? Where is the significant coverage? What source says something more about the subject? What source discusses his theories, school or the research about them? Where in any source is the subject called notable or associated with anything notable? - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Michael Newton and his work are mentioned in a number of books, notably a dissertation, to meet the requirement for WP:GNG, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I believe none of these is self-published. This is only a partial list.
- Healing Soul: Integrating Jungian Psychology and Regressive Therapies [dissertation] by Anthony Craig Rush [23]
- Soul Visioning: Clear the Past, Create Your Future by Susan Wisehart [24]
- 50 Spiritual Classics: Timeless Wisdom from 50 Great Books of Inner Discovery, Enlightenment and Purpose edited by Tom Butler-Bowdon [25]
- The High Heeled Guide to Enlightenment by Alice Grist [26]
- "IN YOUR LIFETIME, FOLLOW THE LIGHT, NOT THE DARKNESS" by M. Petersen [27]
- Healing the Eternal Soul - Insights from Past Life and Spiritual Regression by Andy Tomlinson [28]
- Divination: Perspectives for a New Millennium edited by Patrick Curry [29]
- Beautiful Schools by Ralph Shepherd [30]
- Meta-Physician on Call for Better Health: Metaphysics and Medicine for Mind, Body and Spirit by Steven E. Hodes [31]
- The Karma Handbook by Trutz Hardo [32]
- The Big Book of Reincarnation: Examining the Evidence that We Have All Lived Before by Roy Stemman [33]

--EPadmirateur (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned in a Huffington Post blog by Russ Wellen "What if We Don't Want to be Greeted by Loved Ones at Death?" [34] --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said over two weeks ago when this debate began, EPadmirateur, Newton is discussed in "unreliable, fringe sources". Every single source on your list is a fawning, gushing, credulous unreliable fringe source, pushing the totally unproven notion that hypnosis enables people's "past lives" to be revealed. Fringe sources do not establish notability. We need reliable sources for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - According to WP notability guidelines for fringe theories (and presumably also fringe theorists), "To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it... if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate..." (emphasis added).

Furthermore, "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..." (emphasis added).

Here are several academic sources that reference Michael Newton's work extensively, in particular the first few:

Angela Voss (2010). Life between Lives Therapy: A Mystery Ritual for Modern Times? in Patrick Curry (ed.), Divination: Perspectives for a New Millennium, pp. 211-242, Ashgate Publishing (2010). ISBN 978-1409405559. [35]. This is an entire chapter describing Newton's LBL therapy to explore the phenomenon of "spiritual revelation" as well as the "question of initiation", viewing Newton's work potentially as a "contemporary means of initiation".
Barbara Stevens Barnum (2010). Spirituality in Nursing: The Challenges of Complexity, Third Edition, p. 53, Springer Publishing [36] [37]. This book gives an overview of a number of techniques and therapies, including Newton's. Quote: "Newton (1994) reports that souls are organized in the spirit world after death: (quote). Newton gives much more content concerning the world encountered between lives in his more recent (2004) book. Again, the information was collected by use of hypnotic regression on large numbers of clients."
Jonathan Reams (2010). The Heart and Soul of Leadership: A Transpersonally Oriented Examination of How Quality of Presence Impacts Leadership. Paper presented at Integral theory Conference (2010) [38]. Quote: "Our character shows up early in our lives and he reframes the challenges, traumas and abuses we suffer as means by which our character is tempered and our calling drawn out of us. Newton (1994, 2000, 2009) draws on numerous case studies of hypnotherapy regression to further outline the details of this process. From the view of the human aspect of our existence, our Work, calling, or purpose is how we perceive what from soul’s point of view is the particular lesson or contribution we are focused on at this step in our evolution."
Jonathan Reams (2008). A Transpersonal View of Integral Theory: Disentangling Notions of the Soul. Paper presented at Integral Theory Conference (2008). [39]. Quote: "There are many implications for how this view impacts integral theory. Some are compatible with existing articulations of it while others may throw a different light on the subject. Some brief examples of these include; our ideas about stage development and the possibilities inherent within a given lifetime or the emergence of pathologies framed as karmic manifestations. How we chose as soul to grow from our experiences in this lifetime (Hillman 1996; Newton, 2000) can be seen to impact where, when and how we manifest circumstances in our life, whether it is as parents, culture, traumatic experiences etc."
Terence J. Palmer (2009). The Spirit of Fear, paper presented at British Association for the Study of Religions (BASR) 2009 conference: Religions, Landscapes and Other Uncertain Boundaries. [40] [41]. Quote: "Christian teaching tells us that to have faith in Divine Love is to be without fear, and to have fear is to be not perfect in Divine Love, or perfect in one’s faith in God or the Divine nature of unconditional love. Testimony to this principle is given in the documented transcription of a therapy session where the patient regressed to what has become known as ‘the life between lives’ (Newton, 2004). In this transcription, the therapist, Dr. Irene Hickman is conversing with the patient in a hypnotic trance. (section of a transcript from Newton's 2004 book)."
Stan H. Hodges and Jason S. Ulsperger (2005). Presentations of the Paranormal: The impression management strategies and professionalization tactics of psychics and spirit mediums. Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology, 33(1), 35-50. [42]. Quote: "This tactic of linking alternative ways of healing together gives students a practical purpose to their profession as well as legitimizes it to the individual by tying it spiritually to the respectability of the medical profession by a venue of accredited education (Newton 1999, 2000; Hodges 2002)."
Eric J. Christopher (2000). Exploring the Effectiveness of Past-life Therapy (Masters thesis). [43]. Quote: "The concept of souls reincarnating to earth for the purpose of enhancing their spiritual development is also consistent with Dr. Michael Newton’s findings. Newton, a clinical psychologist and master hypnotherapist in northern California, hypnotically regressed hundreds of clients, over a 10-year period, with wide-ranging belief systems regarding religion and the afterlife. He found a number of astonishing consistencies between all of his clients’ descriptions of both the soul’s journey after physical death and also the soul’s purpose which has convinced him that there is a grand design and order to life and the afterlife (Newton, 1997)."
Diana Coldman (2007). Beyond Results: When clients seek deeper understanding. The Bulletin of the Association for Coaching, 10. [44]. Quote: "Global activity seems to suggest that human consciousness in these areas is expanding, as evidenced by films such as ‘What the Bleep do we Know?’ and leading authorities such as The Michael Newton Institute and their evidence-based work relating to Life Between Lives. Spiritual or holistic coaches are therefore in a unique position to act as catalysts for this continuing unfolding of human potential that is the path we all follow."
Simut, C.C. (2011). The theology of creation in Vito Mancuso's radical theology. Acta Theologica, 31(1), 138-155. [45]. Quote: "With reference to the idea of energy, Mancuso seems convinced that the universe in its entirety in indwelled by a fundamental reality which he defines as energy. He is definitely not alone in associating energy with creation, which are corroborated in the thought of Michael Newton (Newton 2004:339). As an interesting peculiarity, one would probably notice the weird title coincidence between Michael Newton's Destiny of Souls and Vito Mancuso's The Soul and Its Destiny."
Peter Novak (2002). Division of the Self: Life After Death and the Binary Soul Doctrine. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 20(3), 143-189. [46]. Quote: "Michael Newton (1994) also maintained, based on his study of past life regressions, that people’s souls split into two parts between one life and the next. His subjects reported that half a person’s soul often remains behind in the netherworld, in a sort of dormancy or dreaming sleep, while the other half travels back to earth to be reincarnated into another body."
Finally a disparaging commentary published in Huffington Post: Russ Wellen (2009). "What if We Don't Want to be Greeted by Loved Ones at Death?" [47]. Quote: "Unfeeling as it sounds, that may be all that's required according to psychologist and hypnotist [Michael] Newton. The author of popular and provocative books about reincarnation like Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls, he's at the forefront of the minority who, instead of past lives, explores lives between lives, aka, the afterlife. According to Dr. Newton's hypnosis subjects, once family greets you, its members fade into the woodwork (or cloudwork, as it were), at least for the time being. You then move on to your "soul group" -- not the Earth, Wind and Fire kind, but the type said to account for that "Haven't I met you before?" feeling. Composed of individuals with whom we've reincarnated on a regular basis, we catch up on old times with them in the afterlife. This is where the worst fears of those to whom family has been an albatross around their necks come to fruition. Soul groups, see, are said to often include family members. Furthermore, when it comes to reincarnation, family roles are interchangeable."

--EPadmirateur (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The full chapter you mention is clearly a fringe source. Most of the rest are passing mentions as opposed to significant coverage, and most if not all are fringe sources. Please point to any that aren't fringe. The Huffington Post reference is a blog post expressing personal opinions and is so unreliable that it gets Newton's first name wrong. Since you have done so much research on Newton, EPadmirareur, can you tell us which university gave him a PhD? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find anything in WP policies that defines a "fringe source" and that states that a "fringe source" is not acceptable for WP. There seem to be just reliable sources which include (as I quoted earlier) books published by respected publishing houses. Ashgate Publishing is a respected academic publisher. The book Divination is an academic publication and the Voss article is an academic examination of Newton's LBL therapy. This reference is a reliable source. Furthermore, Springer Publishing is a respected academic publisher and Barnum's book is an academic treatment of a wide number of therapies and practices, including Newton's LBL therapy. Finally, ProQuest is a respected source for publishing doctoral dissertations, including a dissertation by Rush which references Newton's LBL therapy extensively. So we have the following three reliable sources that establish Newton's notability:

Angela Voss (2010). Life between Lives Therapy: A Mystery Ritual for Modern Times? in Patrick Curry (ed.), Divination: Perspectives for a New Millennium, pp. 211-242, Ashgate Publishing (2010). ISBN 978-1409405559. [48]. This is an entire chapter describing Newton's LBL therapy to explore the phenomenon of "spiritual revelation" as well as the "question of initiation", viewing Newton's work potentially as a "contemporary means of initiation".
Barbara Stevens Barnum (2010). Spirituality in Nursing: The Challenges of Complexity, Third Edition, p. 53, Springer Publishing [49] [50]. This book gives an overview of a number of techniques and therapies, including Newton's. Quote: "Newton (1994) reports that souls are organized in the spirit world after death: (quote). Newton gives much more content concerning the world encountered between lives in his more recent (2004) book. Again, the information was collected by use of hypnotic regression on large numbers of clients."
Anthony Craig Rush (2011). Healing Soul: Integrating Jungian Psychology and Regressive Therapies [dissertation] ProQuest [51]. Quote: "Newton [is] arguably the leading authority on life between life therapy (p. 59)"

--EPadmirateur (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree in general with Cullen. Voss 2010 could be represented as RS but this is clearly in the promulgators and popularizers category. Barnum 2010, RS but just a passing mention. Reams 2010 & 2008 papers presented at conferences aren't really RS much less at fringe conferences. Palmer 2009 again paper at a conference not RS. Hodges & Ulsperger 2005 passing mention only no discussion. Christopher 2000 a masters thesis why waste our time with this? Coldman 2007 fringe promulgator and popularizer. Simut 2011 passing mention only no discussion. Novak 2002 fringe promulgator and popularizer. Wellen 2009 blog post not RS. One way to think about this is, with the material cited what could be added to the article? Where is the substance of an encylopedic article? Do any of these sources discuss Newton's theories in any kind of detail, do they provide description, analysis or commentary? There just isn't any support beyond mentions which doesn't satisfy notability criteria. Do any of the editors who early on voted keep have any policy based support with references? - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply PhD theses should be used with great caution, and I don't believe this one establishes notability. The nursing source seems to be a passing mention rather than significant coverage but I would like to hear other opinions on that. Now as to Voss, who clearly provides significant coverage. So the question is whether the coverage is reliable and independent. The publisher is an academic house, but reliability combines an evaluation of the writer as well. On her website, Voss identifies herself first and foremost as an astrologer and tarot reader, and then talks about academic credentials. I consider her a fringe source without the expertise to critically evaluate the extraordinary claims of a hypnotist, and therefore not a reliable source. Now, as to her independence, she makes it clear that she has a friendship with Newton, and that she assisted him in finding a university, the identity of which I have not yet learned, that would accept his work as part of a PhD program. So I contend that she is neither reliable nor independent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: let an inclusionist say it for ya: there's no evidence of notability here, and the keep votes are not policy based and should be discounted. if after 4 weeks there was evidence of notability, we would have found it. Wikipedia is not linkedin, whether for competent professionals, or competent fringe professionals.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As to the main article, there is no consensus to delete it but there does seem to be consensus to merge, then delete the individual articles. Editors are asked to finish the mergers and ask for deletion of the individual articles when done. JodyB_talk 11:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All pages have been tagged with AFD's notices removed. Appropriate template was added to the talk pages. JodyB_talk 11:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guadiana Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable friendly competition that does not merit its own article. JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this more non-notable than other friendly competitions, eg. Emirates Cup, Amsterdam Tournament, etc.? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - one of many, many friendly tournaments that are run every year. Topic has not been covered in significant details by independent, reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Generic friendly tournament with no real evidence of notability. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources; only those of questionable reliability, or those from teams who have participated. TheMightyPeanut has made an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and one that ignores the fact that the Emirates Cup gets a reasonable amount of media coverage outside of the primary sources, as did the Amsterdam Tournament; the latter got things such as this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all : WP is not a soccer results service, routine tournament, of no lasting significance. LGA _talk^edits 21:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per above, WP:NOTSTATS. Almost no sourced prose about the tournament or any of its iterations. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be much English-language sources, but there is quite a lot in Portuguese from various independent reliable sources:

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

That would seem to indicate that it passes WP:GNG and I can't agree with any "media coverage" arguments above. I do agree that it fails WP:NOTSTATS though. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, source and improve the main Guadiana Trophy page, delete the season articles. There appears to be plenty of coverage in the Portuguese media for the competition itself, but separate pages just for 3 or 4 football results is ridiculous. If anyone fancied expanding it, the Amsterdam Tournament page, a featured list, looks a likely model to follow. FWIW, I'd also be happy to delete "articles" like 2001 Amsterdam Tournament, which add little to the sum of human knowledge. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Guadiana Trophy, keep the main article. NickSt (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Merge all to Guadiana Trophy, keep the main article. Very fair rationale by Struway2 above. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the parent article, Delete the individual seasons. Struway makes an excellent point (as always). Mentoz86 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struways propsal of merging all seasonal articles to the parent one. FkpCascais (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Mills[edit]

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

Minor celebrity without sustained notability. "Achievement" mentioned in just one reliable independent source. Fails as WP:SINGLEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BIO1E, plus unforgivable use of "gonna". The third reason is my idea of a joke. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotflux[edit]

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

I do not see any substantial non-PR sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The PC World article looks legit. Some of the others I think are just regurgitated press releases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socially optimal firm size[edit]

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

Like Diseconomies of scale, this article appears to be original research. Only one doctoral dissertation seems to be available to support it and even that isn't used as a reference. Joja lozzo 01:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have references. If you want more, Google will find plenty. Somebody changed the title from Ideal firm size to it's current name, which I don't agree with. I'd like it changed back. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no references in this article. If you can supply some please do. Joja lozzo 02:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The References section was mistitled. Fixed now. StuRat (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a References section but it is empty. Joja lozzo 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Like diseconomies of scale this seems to be a drive-by nomination made without the due diligence required by WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you this is not a drive-by nom. This article has the basic signatures of OR, especially the style and the lack of sources. Note that no one has added any sources since I proposed deletion. Joja lozzo 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My Google searches, including news and books, did not show this expression coming up much at all. There were instances where 3 or 4 of the words came up in the same paragraph, but nothing to show this is an established (notable) concept. If we have an article Optimal size it could redirect there, but even that is arguably just a dictionary definition of the words. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Optimal firm size. GScholar shows 1,330 hits for "optimal firm size", 25 hits for "ideal firm size" and 6 results for "socially optimal firm size", so "optimal firm size" seems the most common phrase of the three for the topic. GScholar for "optimal firm size" shows multiple reliable sources dealing with the topic in depth; the topic seems notable. The article needs a lot of work, including sourcing, but is not so bad that we must blow it up per WP:TNT. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Mark viking

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. This one seems like a good candidate for a no consensus closure with five keeps and four deletes. However, one point is that none of the keeps could demonstrate any notability beyond the routine coverage of the event (it is quite understandable that a game between Russian and Ukrainian champions does get some coverage, but in fact almost every high-profile game gets, and we normally do not write articles about single games). The second point is that five keeps are two users in good standings, one of them inactive, and three IPs, who basically do not make any meaningful contribution to the discussion, just come here to vote. 4:2 would (barely) be consensus to delete. Again, this not how I notmally close AfD discussions, and everybody is welcome to take this one to WP:DRV so that fellow editors can re-evaluate my closure.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cup of Champions[edit]

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

PROD removed with the reason of "good known tournament, plz start a full discussion." I disagree, and believe the original PROD rationale of "non-notable friendly match, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid - this was a one-off event with no notability and no lasting significance. Giant Snowman 13:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No reason to delete this article. Big coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media,for example see [52] [53] [54] etc (many links in the article). Best clubs of the leagues took part in it (united supercup of two countries). Potentially impact to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future [55]. Similar notability as for other 2013 friendly tournaments. NickSt (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref is self-published, the other two do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 16:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another links (in Russian), not only sports media: Korrespondent (net) [56], TSN.ua [57], [58], Sport-Express [59], Sovetsky Sport [60] etc. NickSt (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no significant coverage of the tournament - this is all WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 18:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normal coverage not different from another supercups. NickSt (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable tournament with many sources in the article. 178.93.236.79 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Big keep per arguments above. The name itself and the coverage it got are enough to keep it. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one-off exhibition game like this is certainly not worthy of an article. The closing admin should have a look at the contributions of the IPs, as to me they look like obvious meatpuppets (both appeared to comment on AfDs regarding friendly tournaments) Number 5 7 13:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So was the 2013 Uli Hoeneß Cup, but I don't see it nominated for deletion. The teams participating in it, the champions of two leagues, and the context in which it was created, which is a possible union between the championships, is what makes it notable. The media coverage was huge and the name says a lot! 176.26.247.147 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage, as there is for most things sport, but it's not significant in the notability sense of the word. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define notability. As far as my common sense tells me, a cup created as a super cup between the champions of two leagues, in the context of talks about uniting the league, it's notable. More notable than the 2013 Uli Hoeneß Cup. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The trophy got a very large coverage in the local medias, and the teams themselves approached it as more than a friendly game. Also, it was seen as a milestone in the attempt to create a united championship. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not edited for three months then suddenly reappear for this debate? Is this more meatpuppetry? Number 5 7 01:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article with many sources. 194.50.51.252 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPORTSEVENT requires that the game is "widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game". Sancho 17:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Consumers Council[edit]

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

Purely promotional article, with promotional wording throughout. References consist of routine stories on the group's routine actions. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--Ncchild (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Chandra Natali[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Did get MNZM but that is well down on the list of New Zealand Royal Honours System. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per New Years honour. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per New Years honour NealeFamily (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the honours enough? Given the lack of any decent independent coverage and the large numbers handed out I'd say no. It's well down the list of NZ Honours and Commonwealth honours have a poor precedence at AfD. OAM, deleted, OAM, deleted, AM, deleted, BEM, deleted, OAM, deleted, OAM, deleted, AM, keep, AM, keep. Looks like by themselves there is a bad record and only they are kept with other supporting evidence. Wikipedians' notice board discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the Australian system, but both if the mnzm's I've put the time into came out with the sources, Stuartyeates (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MNZM is a respectable NZ honour ;shows that he is considered important as an activist for his community in NZ.

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedCompany.com[edit]

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

Non-notable web site lacking non-trivial support and references. CSD removed by SPA. reddogsix (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newly launched website with PR but no substantial 3rd party coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. The CSD removal and article talk page have attracted lots of attention from WP:SPA accounts. AllyD (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance, no sources other than press releases. Fails WP:WEB. If there is significant independent coverage in the future, maybe then it can be recreated. But not now. Novusuna ^talk 07:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate.js[edit]

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

WP:NSOFT not established. Has one non-affiliated source, an interview with its maker. The only other thing I could find on Google is this page, which only has a screenshot and a link, so it hardly constitutes significant coverage. Google's result pages are cluttered by WordPress blogs with the chocolate theme; DuckDuckGo found some Chinese pages that I couldn't read.

FWIW, the GitHub page for chocolate.js has only 146 stars and its Twitter account has 3 followers. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ref provided is from a company blog, and not RS. A search turned up no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoads Lucca Capital[edit]

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

Article concerns an investment advisor. It was created in February 2011 and was tagged for notability in April 2011. Since then there have been no substatial edits to the article. The article has also been tagged as an orphan and as a possible COI issue (though this is not evident to me). The article certainly does not make any claims for notability. A Google search brings up a number of directory entries and a few press releases, but no independent reliable sources to suggest notability. The references given in the article are to the company itself, a dead link and the company's software - nothing independent or reliable. Emeraude (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, one of the people mentioned in the article did have a Wiklipedia article which was deleted on 6 September 2012 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lucca. Emeraude (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I can find instances of where a member of the company is quoted in an article about investing, but that's all aside from press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pantarei Advertising[edit]

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

The article sources seem to be closely affiliated and unreliable for establishing notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Nealy[edit]

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

This basketball player doesn't appear to meet the WP:NHOOPS criteria. Powers ^T 01:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Powers ^T 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NHOOPS or GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1055 Tynka[edit]

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

This asteroid has no significance, and this article's only source has no instructions on how to use it. Bojo1498 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link in question clearly instructs you to "Enter the IAU number, name, or designation for the object of interest in the Search form above". But I've added a direct link in a proper footnote. Kolbasz (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO, no defining characteristics whatsoever. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. AstroCog (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser Al Qatami[edit]

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

I'd PROD this but I don't know enough about the topic area to really research effectively for sources. All I know is there aren't any significant sources listed here, what's written is essentially a CV, that Google only returns 94 hits for "Nasser Al Qatami" -wikipedia, and the article creator's contributions list suggests a possible promotional/paid advocacy position (which he/she is trying to mask by interspersing a bunch of small, low-quality edits to random articles in between advocacy). I admit, it's possible that this person is notable based on foreign sources I can't access, but see tr:Vikipedi:Silinmeye aday sayfalar/Nasser Qatami (deleted by local AfD) and ar:ناصر القطامي (appears to be what the English article was translated from, which would make the English one noncompliant with attribution policy). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear non-notable unsourced BLP. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Patwa[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for notability since June. All sources are press releases or trivial mentions that show the subject exists, but give no indication of notability. Repeated failure of those editing the article to provide any sources that indicate notability has convinced me that the subject is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It appears that the company she works for is more notable than she is at this time. A lot of mere mentions, but that cannot establish notability, sadly. SarahStierch (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The only person who has been tagging this for notability issues since June is Edward321, who has been acting in bad faith by repeatedly removing reliable, neutral, secondary sources that were accurate and written in good faith from this page and merely adding issue tags without adequate explanation particularly when asked by other users and editors to provide reasoning for disputed tags after they made fact-based contributions in a civil manner. On Edward321's talk page in September 2013, users Mdann52 and Dru of Id agreed with other editors to remove the issue tags, including on notability, yet Edward321 persisted. Other editors have removed the notability tag based on the sources, which users such as GB fan kept in later edits. And SarahStierch, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention and from a neutral point of view, which the sources provide. Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. There are other articles such as Jennifer Rudolph Walsh, Patrick Whitesell, George Shapiro, Jon Simmons, Mary Jo Slater, Kirk Sommer, Nancy Nigrosh, Matthew McGurk, Scott Lipps, Sam Gores, Chafie Fields, Rodney Afshari, Yogi Allgood and Richard Arlook with similar source materials that are not flagged for deletion or notability issues, who could also subjectively be argued are not more notable than the companies they work for at this time. Stillknight (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Stillknight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Stillknight the status of other articles have no bearing on this article. Each article is looked at individually to see whether it belongs in the encyclopedia. If the other articles do not meet our notability guidelines they can be dealt with in their own discussions. You might want to read the essay, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. note:I made a small change to your post above and linked my username. GB fan 16:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, GB fan. Your point is exactly what I was trying to make in response to SarahStierch's comment comparing notability of a company to a person, which has no bearing in justifying to delete this article. Stillknight (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my comment: [61]; I did not mention the tags directly, but my comment was not in support. Dru of Id (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Examination of my talk page[62] shows that Dru of Id (as they note above) also found the article's sourcing inadequate. Gryllida also attempted to explain to the spa why the sourcing was inadequate. Edward321 (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source from Edward321's talk page was the LATimes: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-factorymade-20130910,0,1723531,full.story which is why the other users were not in support of tags.Stillknight (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just sufficient notability . Tho an article need not be mainly about the subject, it must offer substantial coverage of it. The LA Times article does that, and the LA Times is the best source for this sort of topic. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 04:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hull & East Yorkshire Credit Union[edit]

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

I do not see the significance of this local credit union. The reverences seem to be all local, mere mentions, press releases, or various combinations of those characteristics of unreliable refs. for notability DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mere mentions in the press, but appears to fail our general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. a very minor local organization. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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