Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 December	29 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. I'm dismissing the "keep" opinions by single-purpose accounts because they do not address the policy-based argument for deletion: that the article is unsalvageably promotional and would need to be rewritten from scratch, by an editor who is not associated with the company. Several editors who voiced "keep" opinions have also been blocked for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZeroesAndOnes/Archive. Sandstein 09:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feith Systems[edit]

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

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

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

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

advertising The Banner talk 23:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any spammy content can be fixed but this appears to be a somewhat notable company, at least among US government procurement agencies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That means chopping off everything except (parts of) the lead... You can't be that important as claimed in the article with just 50 staff. The Banner talk 12:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too promotional. I wouldn't be surprised if it were created by the corporation itself. It would be better to start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe there's any meaningfully salvageable content. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See, here's my issue: I don't see any difference in this article than in the articles of anyone else in their space I looked at before forming my opinion, such as Hyland Software, Autonomy Corporation, Perceptive Software (those are appropriately marked as "appears to be written like an advertisement", and so is this), etc., or pretty much any company that's not the size of IBM or Microsoft. So if you're going to delete this one, you would have to delete all the others, and a huge portion of companies on Wikipedia for deletion. If you were to delete this entry, and none of the other companies in the space, you would be acting unfairly and not in an even-handed manner, and that's against everything I know Wikipedia to be. For all I know, the person that originally nominated this for deletion could be close to one of this company's competitors. // And if you read the article, and see all the firsts and mosts and onlys of this company in their space, they are clearly notable, or at the very least, as notable as any other midrange software company. // And I don't understand at all WikiDan61's argument "You can't be that important as claimed in the article with just 50 staff."; that's a ludicrous statement. What difference does that make? How many engineers do you deem appropriate to write software? // Bottom line: Delete all companies similar to this or delete none; we're nothing if not for an even playing field. Keep with 'advert' tag and leave it. --MPH (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Note: While not clear from the signature, MPH is, in fact, the primary author of the article in question. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company seems to have been around for a long time and has a slew of customers. Plus, they look have interesting certifications and firsts on those certs. Also, I checked out some of the others in the document management space, and they are all similarly written in terms of topics and content. --Dzan2583 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Dzan2583 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Many government and enterprise organizations utilize Feith software to run their business. Maybe some of the customer use cases should be included. I don't see any reason why it should be removed.--Alaynep (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Alaynep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Not sure why this is flagged for deletion. A mid-size company describing all their firsts, Heavily used by the US Government and multiple large corporations. I looked at some of the links above and they are all similar, describing their history and products. --Scvff (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Scvff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Attention last four "keep-voters": see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZeroesAndOnes. The Banner talk 01:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea who Dzan2583, Scvff, or Alaynep are. They are people voting that have every right to their opinions that should not be summarily dismissed. I really have nothing else for you because this entire process is confusing and strange. That being said, I think that argument that the Feith Systems article is in no way different than any other of that company's competitions' articles and is being singled out, and if you delete this article you need to delete all the others, holds water. Please elaborate for me how the other similar companies mentioned are different than this one, and maybe I'll understand more. Or put them all up for nomination. Regardless, it would seem to a layperon as me that your decision has already been made regardless of comment or discussion, from anyone. I maintain that regardless of authorship, the company (and the article) remains notable and unique it its field, at least as even or more than other similar companies that exist on Wikipedia. --ZeroesAndOnes (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Changing my opinion to delete. Given the bad faith exhibited by the creator and editors of this article, I believe the article was created solely for promotional purposes. Any legitimate article about this company would need to start from scratch. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an advertisement type piece with insufficient importance for its own article.--Stormbay (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable! This company has been around for a long time and has many customers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost a speedy as pure promotion/advertisment. Not impressed by the sock/meatpuppeting going on here, either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ΜGFX[edit]

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

Software package with nearly no substantial results in a web search, and as this is a recent software package, a notable one would have such results. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem there. It is correct that it is a new piece of software. Therefore it is not spread all over the world like some piece of software that would be used since 10 years. If you take a closer look to the project, you will see that it is very active. It has a project homepage (note the dates of the news section), a community forum and an active git repository -> the project is active. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a collection of things that exist over several years and that are used by thousands of people? Furthermore, when I take a look at the website statistics of the project homepage, I can see several dozen redirects from that Wikipedia page to the website. Tectu (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But to show notability, you need to demonstrate that this has been noticed outside the MGFX community. Have any news sources written articles about this, for example? Ego White Tray (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage from independent reliable sources. Wikipedia requires a certain minimum level of notability for inclusion. Reviews would satisfy this requirement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would a deletion mean that the article cannot be recreated once it got the required notability? We plan to post an article about it on hackaday.com and golem.de within the following two weeks. We already have the 'okay' from the former.Tectu (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if things changed and this project did get coverage, the article could be re-created, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but you could also have an admin move it to your user page or send you the text. However, if the "we" that posts the article on those websites means people promoting the project, that tells me right there that neither of those websites are independent sources. Independent source means the source writes an article about it because they want to, not because you asked them to. In the case of Linux, for example, journalists write stories about it, not because Linux-advocates request or submit them, but because they want to write articles about it. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages like hackaday.com live from the fact that the users submit topics to write about. Hence the submit a tip button on top of the page. Tectu (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that means it is not an independent source. While most news sources do take tips, they don't wait to get one before reporting on stories. I don't know the source well enough to know if it's reliable - that is, I don't know how much they actually verify the tips they receive before they publish things. Some websites will publish any tips without questioning any of it. Ego White Tray (talk)

I've a question: Sometimes people wrote blog posts about work they did using µGFX. Like this one or this one. Are they seen as notable, independent sources/references? Tectu (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blog posts are considered borderline for most blogs, even if runs by the New York Times or a big name source like that. Also, your first one merely mentions it in passing while actually being a post about a different topic. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I see no way around a deletion by the Wikipedia staff. Thanks for your time. Tectu (talk) 15:40, 31 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 Speedied. -- John Reaves 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal Man[edit]

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

Non notable fictional character; all sources are primary, and notability is not inherited. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks any independent reliable sources establishing that the character is in any way notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:18, 29 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. Tone 18:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Harleston Jr.[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable person (recently deceased), consisting mainly of direct quotations from his web page. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fringe theorist. Although he is often mentioned in other fringe sources, I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. I will reconsider if such coverage emerges. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From GS seems to have made no impact on the academic world. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neill King[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

DeleteUnreferenced BLP, no claim to notability, pretty well zip in the way of search results for somebody with what looks like an impressive CV.TheLongTone (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's got an impressive resume [1] but unfortunately the media doesn't care much about the folks behind the artists, so my vote is also for delete since the sources just aren't there to support his notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable biogrphy. --Stormbay (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Benin. Tone 18:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beninese[edit]

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

Since there is no language called "Beninese", there is nothing to disambiguate; all topics on the page are different ways to refer to the clear primary topic of the title, Benin. This disambiguation page, which contains no actual ambiguous topics, should be deleted in favor of a redirect that will take readers to the one topic that actually corresponds to the title. bd2412 T 21:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Benin. The only other legitimate entry would be Benin cuisine (as in "I had Beninese for dinner"), but that's a bit out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 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. Sandstein 09:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Associazione Nazionale Felina Italiana[edit]

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

I can't actually find any third-party sources that verify this organization's notability. Powers ^T 01:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANFI is *THE* National Association for Cattery and it is recognized by the Italian Government whicj also delegated to that association to manage the genealogical book of every recognized feline breed. It is part of FIFè Fédération Internationale Féline. In Wikipedia there are already other associations as ANFI, for example, The International Cat Association, Fédération Internationale Féline, Cat Aficionado Association. You can find them in the category for Cat_registry. If you delete ANFI you should delete all of them, otherwise it would be a geographical discrimination. --Dejudicibus (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the page would certainly benefit from some extra content and references on history, activity, status and aims; I think the Organisation's notability can be verified by some third parties. Eg. [2] and [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.212.45 (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANFI is the acronym for Associazione Nazionale Felina Italiana (National Italian Feline Association)- founded in 1934 became part on 1949 of the F.I.Fe. (FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE FELINE. The ANFI have been recognized on 1997 by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture - this meaning its the only association that can testify and release genealogy documents with legal validity in italy and internationally for what regards italian cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.190.171 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much, but the fact remains that I'm having trouble finding reliable third-party sources that prove the subject's notability. Perhaps you could help find them and add them to the article. Powers ^T 15:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which language are you searching those third-parties sources? Because ANFI is a national association, so you should search in the national language, that is, Italian. In the past there was some discussion about some Italian notable article because some Wikipedian was pretending to find sources in English language only. This is ok for English-related organizattion but makes little sense for other countries.--Dejudicibus (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is the list of all international feline associations members of FIFè (which is in Wikipedia too).--Dejudicibus (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looking for Italian sources would be ideal, but I have no ability to evaluate Italian sources for reliability, comprehensiveness, significance, or relevance. That's kind of why I've suggested that someone else might want to find some to put in the article. Powers ^T 14:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled upon this deletion discussion as I came across another dubious article that referred to here: École supérieure internationale de Bruxelles. I don't intend to participate in this discussion (no expert, lack of time, just came across while editing a complete other subject), but thought you guys should be informed as well about this. Timelezz (talk) 13:31, 18 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, czar ♔ 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I am really confused! Are you telling me that the Italian Government isn't a sufficiently reliable source and reference for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Settimo (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 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, Mkdw ^talk 21:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.anfitalia.it/site/images/decreto_ministeriale_20634_21_settembre_2010.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riziao (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.anfitalia.it/site/images/decreto_ministeriale_n22790.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riziao (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appears to be a bunch of news articles similar to this one that essentially confirms that the organsiation is the governing body for cat breeds in Italy. That's based on machine translation as I have no skills in Italian. I suspect that an editor proficient in Italian could find much better sourcing for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one's really disputed its status; the question is is that alone enough to meet our WP:N requirements? We need reliable third-party sources that discussion this organization qua organization. Powers ^T 00:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H. V. Kumar[edit]

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

Personal promotional article on a clearly non notable person known mostly for participation in travel forums. Accepted from AfC. I hope our standards there are higher now, though I am by no means sure of it. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 21 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? 19:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have nominated the article for Speedy delete under wp:A7 Neonchameleon (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the article previously has been speedied once (as Hvkumar), but it was then userfied and later passed AfC. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 20:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIODEL: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." - tucoxn\^talk 04:06, 29 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) 01:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Alan Thomas[edit]

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

Despite at least one non-primary source per WP:V#Notability, I copied this person's acting credentials to Taxi (TV series). Also, I don't think this person is independently notable and fails WP:N and WP:BIO in many ways. This person portrayed just one minor character and made background appearances that made no further significance to his career. Past revisions can tell you that this person is deceased and has personal background, but the information is removed as poorly sourced. Nevertheless, even such information doesn't make the person notable. George Ho (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a jobbing actor with very few credits and practically no significant roles - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:01, 22 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, Mkdw ^talk 20:53, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exterran Holdings, Inc[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity/advertising page for a non-notable corporation. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is a public company listed on the NYSE and also appeared in some other wiki pages, which means it is informative for many potential readers. Besides, the complex history or organizational structure means it needs more contributors to improve it but not to delete it at all. Many thanks for your advice!Hemambahe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep $2 billion public company that trades on the NYSE. The corporate history is a bit complicated, but the component companies go back many decades. Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources to be found. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion is WP:N. It might be that the companies held by this holdings company are notable but we'd need coverage specifically about this business. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to disagree. It seems to me that if company A is the sole owner of company B, then coverage of company B is prima facie coverage of company A. The idea that companies A and B are distinct juristic persons is a legal fiction that may not bear any relation to reality (as indeed is the entire concept of incorporation). James500 (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in the NYT, the WSJ, CNN and Bloomberg. Included in the Fortune 1000. One of the largest companies in America. Billions of dollars. James500 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be curious to see what you found in WSJ etc for this company. My Google search came up with lots of hits but nothing significant only press releases published via Business Wire in Forbes, WSJ etc. There are lots of articles about the company in Seeking Alpha, but I'm not sure if that's considered a reliable source on WP as its basically a blog forum with some editorial oversight.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A company whose stock is traded on the NYSE is sure to have enough information available that an article can be written about it. However, move to Exterran Holdings per WP:NCCORP (the current title is missing a period at the end of "Inc", and "Inc." should preferably not be included in the title anyway). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orb of Thesulah[edit]

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

Minor non-notable fictional object. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. At most deserves a redirect to the Buffy article, but I doubt even that. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 20:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear redirect target (either to Buffy or Angel). Lacks notability independent of either series. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer where it made its first appearance and can be spoken of in context to the notable series. It can be mentioned in related series if sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:29, 31 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 Queensland Rail#Long_Distance_Trains. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traveltrain[edit]

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

Article is a list of station stops for train services operated by Queensland Rail. Each train already has its own article with the station stops included. The overall picture is covered at Queensland Rail. Mo7838 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles serves no function as its contents already covered adequately in other articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Mo7838. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 00:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queensland Rail#Long_Distance_Trains. Plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
redirect per Lankiveil. There isn't a need for this separate article, but as a likely search term it is best for Wikipedia to direct users to where we have content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Pettersson[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:17, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This and all the other ice hockey players listed below play for a professional team in the top tier, as referenced in the articles, therefore guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY Acb314 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lazy creation of a page (would be an insult to call this an article) and, frankly, an embarrassment to this project. I wonder if the article creator will put even the slightest effort into turning this into a useful article? As it stands, this barely surpasses the threshold to save it from an A7 speedy deletion. But not by much. Reso lute 01:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Meets criterion 1 of NHOCKEY, with Pettersson having played two games in the Swedish Hockey League, universally considered to be one of the highest-level leagues in the world. I have seen plenty of stubs in a far more deplorable state than this one, and the short length of the article does not justify its deletion. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 03:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per NHOCKEY criterion 1. Could however need an expansion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Resolute's assessment, but from the earliest notability criteria set forth on Wikipedia for athletes, playing so much as a single game for a top-level, top-ranked professional sports league has been considered sufficient evidence for notability. If the nom is ignorant of the NSPORTS criteria as well as the requirements of WP:BEFORE -- as the several other now-withdrawn AfDs he made suggests -- he shouldn't be making AfD nominations until such time as he is. Ravenswing 14:09, 30 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Marklund[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:15, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY Scottsadventure (talk) 06:56, 29 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Allen[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:13, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsadventure (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 December 2013

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Öhman[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:17, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY Scottsadventure (talk) 06:54, 29 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pontus Petterström[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:13, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY Scottsadventure (talk) 06:58, 29 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Enberg[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:14, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY Scottsadventure (talk) 06:56, 29 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niclas Lundgren[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:10, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsadventure (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 December 2013‎

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niclas Burström[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:16, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY Scottsadventure (talk) 06:55, 29 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristofer Berglund[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:11, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsadventure (talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 December 2013‎

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Larsson[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 20:12, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsadventure (talk • contribs) 07:09, 29 December 2013‎

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gunderson[edit]

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

Article does not contain any references showing that the person is notable. Scottsadventure (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" guideline indicates they are notable - see WP:NHOCKEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsadventure (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 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. Michig (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for original research and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a collection of trivia, which in itself is sufficient for deletion IMHO, but by compiling the data the list asserts an original thesis, that the presence of these actors contributed to the winning of the Best Picture Oscar. Now in some cases that is likely true, but the list also captures people like Irving Bacon, whose roles as "Corporal" in Gone With the Wind, "Gas Station Attendant" (uncredited) in It Happened One Night and "Henry - The Head Waiter" in You Can't Take It With You, while I'm sure were super, were not likely uppermost in Academy voters' minds when casting their ballots those years. In the absence of reliable sources that support the thesis of the list it should be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a list of over 130 notable actors who have a notable accomplishment. Extracting list information from readily available reliable sources is not "original" research. Performance in Academy Award winning films, especially Best Picture, isn't considered "trivia", and is commonly mentioned in biographical coverage of an actor's career. There is no thesis advanced that these actors were decisive in the Best Picture win. It would have been nice to have informed TheLastAmigo, who has spent seven years diligently maintaining this list, of this deletion nomination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff and nonsense. The original research is not that they appeared in the films and I said so in the nomination. And either there is a thesis advanced, in which case the list is OR, or there isn't, in which case it's indiscriminate trivia. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I started this list 7 years ago, I did so because there was no other list like it of its kind, and it was born out of the records section of the actual Academy Awards page. I never advanced any sort of thesis that each of these actors helped propel a film to a Best Picture win, just that they were in said Best Picture winners. This is not a mere list of trivia, but a listing of actual Academy Awards-related records. Appearing in multiple Best Picture winners is a rare occurrence and not a feat that most actors can claim to have accomplished. And if you look beyond the list, you will also see that the scope goes beyond the actors and includes directors, producers, cinematographers, film editors, etc. Perhaps we can change the name of the article to something else, but the page is notable enough to warrant keeping. Furthermore, I don't appreciate you referring to my 7 years of hard work on this article as "stuff and nonsense". That is very rude. TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So trivial, it's only got a blog for a reference. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the relevant guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE:
A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:
The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.

The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

Keep per the preceding read and understood. While I can understand the nominator's convern that simply being an actor who has appeared in multiple award-winning films is not in an of itself notable, in looking to the applicable guideline, we have two points to consider:

The list consists only of blue-linked (already notable) actors and simply strives to present a list for our readers showing how many "Best Picture films" they have appeared in, and
While many minor actors "could" meet this list, they are not on it, as it has set criteria for inclusion, and is thus specific and not indiscriminate.

My conclusions per guidelines's instruction: As each of the bluelinked persons within this list are themselves eminently sourced, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTPURP are clearly met. Perhaps a name-change could assuage... ie: List of notable actors who have appeared in multiple films which have won Academy Awards for Best Picture... but really... a too-long name is itself a dis-service. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only inclusion criterion for this list is that an actor has appeared in at least two films that won Best Picture. This supposed exclusionary criterion you're claiming does not exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... the inclusion criteria for such lists already exists at WP:LISTPEOPLE. The "exclusionary criterion" is when someone does not meet that existing guideline. Please review WP:LISTPURP to see that the collected names serve the exact purpose set in that criteria. But if you truely feel the article's lead requires a redundant restating of WP:LISTPEOPLE, then it can be added. Never really a need to delete what can be addressed with just the smallest bit of editing. Though with a bit of thought I do not see why all list articles within these pages must now need explain exclusionary criteria. How much thought is required to determine that a Cheshire cat does not belong in a list on igneous rocks?... or why a redlinked name does not always (but could) belong in a list of blue-linked? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is far more exclusionary than List of Academy Award-winning films, in which the only criteria is that the film had to have won an Academy Award. Any Academy Award will do. TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is not just random trivia, but something that is actually relevant to people who follow the Academy Awards. These are actual pertinent Academy Awards records of interest to many people, and is even prominently linked on the main article for the Academy Awards. Furthermore, I have seen this list cited in non-Wikipedia articles pertaining to the Academy Awards and it has even been linked to some of the articles for the actors... some of which, like Franklyn Farnum and Bess Flowers, who appeared in 7 and 5 Best Picture winners, is their major claim to fame. If you're going to go after this list, then why not go after other trivial lists such as List of people who have been pied, which has been nominated for deletion 4 times and been upheld each and every time? Furthermore, it is no more trivial than any other Academy Awards-related lists, such as List of Academy Award-winning families or List of Academy Award trophies on public display. The list has been around for 7 years and no one has ever had a problem with its existence until now. The fact that the article has had 5,637 individual page views in the last 90 days proves that it is also an article that is of interest to many people. If you want me to include citations, I would be happy to go in and do it. TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - This article has been around a very long time; its subject matter is (without dispute) notable. Clearly, the Academy Awards are the highest honor in the film industry, not only in the USA, but probably worldwide as well. And, clearly, the "Best Picture" Oscar is the highest award that a film can receive. To be a cast member of multiple Best Picture winners is no small feat. It is clearly notable. The list itself has approximately 130 actors ... from a field of how many thousands upon thousands upon thousands of actors over the years (since 1928). Clearly, these 130 individuals have achieved a rare – and notable – feat. Furthermore, the nominator makes a huge assumption – and quite a leap – when he asserts that "by compiling the data the list asserts an original thesis, that the presence of these actors contributed to the winning of the Best Picture Oscar". Where does the article posit such a thesis? The nominator has made that up, out of whole cloth. There is no reason to nominate this article for deletion, much less to delete it. Strong KEEP. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide verifiable and notable information in a neutral way. This article meets that purpose. All the policies are nothing more than guidelines to help us reach that goal. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The guidelines that have been referenced so far are only Manual of Style guidelines (WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTPURP) that do not provide direct guidance about the notability of the list itself. The notability guideline to look at here are WP:NOTESAL. The first paragraph states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." This basically states that for a list to be notable, there need to have been secondary sources listing actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. However, the second paragraph recognizes the possibility of "complex and cross-categorization lists" to justify lists like this one. (We are criss-crossing a list of actors with a list of Academy award winners.) I would like to see secondary sources validate this list topic to help reflect that the list is useful. My concern with this list is that the circumstances are rather happenstance, that an actor (regardless of role prominence) happened to be in the right films. For example, the largest numbers seem to mostly correlate with old or deceased actors, suggesting to me that the more films in which an actor appears, the more likely they will have been cast (especially as opposed to starring) in an Academy Award winner. Ben Affleck with a count of 2 could have a count of 7 by the end of his acting career, for all we know. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No new arguments, but I strongly support all the above Keeps. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Brown[edit]

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

No independent refs in the article. Googling reveals lots of hits, primarily sites associated with the subject; secondarily there are a number of blogs and other non-reliable sources, but no WP:RS's. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I contested the PROD because the lists of published books seemed extensive, if not notable, and deserved a closer look via AfD. I was neutral at the time, having not really looked that deeply into the man. After doing some searching, Google News pops up an article on one of his books (full disclosure: he writes a column for the same publication) [4]. There also seem to be several articles in relation to his activities surrounding LGBTQ groups in the Charlotte, NC area see [5], [6], [7]. He seems to scrape by WP:GNG, which is why I am !voting weak keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be several articles about his involvement in and departure from the Brownsville Revival; see Talk page. His 2010 commentary on Jeremiah in The Expositor's Bible Commentary series is a significant contribution that should have some assessment in academic sources. Because of his prominence in Messianic Judaism there should be some rabbinic reaction.
SBaker43 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep His notability is far less than other conservative religious leaders, but he has enough notariety to be listed among the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Files and was highlighted in a September 2012 article "30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/summer/30-to-watch http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/michael-brown

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 New Jersey's 5th congressional district election, 2006. And delete. Sandstein 09:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Abate[edit]

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

Non notable Politician that ran unsuccessfully in a congressional election. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Jersey's 5th congressional district election, 2006, where the former primary candidate can be mentioned. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen328. Although it should be noted that she ran in two elections, not one. 2006 makes a little more sense as a redirect because she got 34% of the vote in '06 and only 32% of the vote in '08. (Per Our Campaigns and the NJ Dept. of State). -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as far as I can tell, the subject of the biography ran second in a primary to a candidate that eventually lost the final election. Since she didn't even make the main election, I don't think a redirect is appropriate in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merging of the yearly articles can be discussed on the article talk pages (one merge is already proposed). Michig (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tejano Music Awards[edit]

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

Non notable award show of a regional music genre has no References and I can't find any that makes this award show notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles only list the winners of this non-notable award show and have no sources to suggest notability:

JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was mentioned of this AFD, but I know sources exist as that is where Selena got her start. However, Google News archives is down for the next few months so its hard to reach them right now. I got another AFD where I have a great interest on and let me see if I could use HighBeam or Google Newspapers to save this. Merge or Delete the yearly articles however as that is borderline ridiculous. Secret ^account 18:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep main page and delete yearly articles per below. Secret ^account 03:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in Billboard magazine and a book called Handbook of Texas Music. Once Google News Archive is back in service, I am confident that many more sources can be found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HighBeam yields more than 140 news stories, and GBooks has plenty of materials as well. Clearly notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:59, 28 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) 00:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Raje[edit]

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

unknown non- notable political leader. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG - multiple reliable sources about the topic with significant coverage. Founder of a political party, activist on a number of issues including a 30 year career in labor unions, environmental, etc.. For additional sources see this version of the article. -- GreenC 19:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG for the reasons given by GreenC. I've been removing some poor sources and some misrepresentations but there is tons of evidence regarding notability. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per GreenC and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:41, 30 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. Tone 18:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Putman[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:ATH, never played fully-pro. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG as the footballer hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Some sources do mention the subject but the coverage amounts to routine local coverage. Fails subject-specific notability criteria at WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't played in a fully professional league (WP:FPL). Hack (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LCT Lawyers[edit]

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

advertisement for non-notable law firm. The refs are either PR or trivial. No major awards--all the awards are very specialized. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several of the references turned out to be mistitled links to articles about another firm, LNT & Partners (which has a similar article at AfC). AllyD (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A firm going about its business, gathering standard industry coverage; insufficient evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 29 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. Tone 18:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Evans[edit]

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

Nothing remarkable about this woman other than being the sister of the Gibbs Brothers. Notability is not inherited. TheLongTone (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty clear-cut case of not meeting WP:BIO as an individual. The article only speaks about the subject in relation to her famous siblings. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. No other claim to notability.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:36, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Gibb[edit]

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

Only real claim to fame is being the mother of the Gibbs Brothers. Notability is not inherited. TheLongTone (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO on own merits. Just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it's notable. The article refers to the subject in the context of her famous sons. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no genuine reason has been given for deletion. WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY. Her notability derives from being related to these popular musicians; the deletion request should be framed by WP:GNG looking at coverage and/or WP:BLP regarding WP:LOWPROFILE, but WP:NOTINHERITED is definitely WP:NOTPOLICY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that makes, a pair of articles, one for each parent, and then of course four more pages, one for each of the grandparents...8? 16? 32?...as I clearly meant, no independant claim to notability.23:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)TheLongTone (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NOTPOLICY is not a policy and states as much in the summary. It's plainly obvious what the nominator means. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the fallacy that by WP:NOTINHERITED inevitably leads to a violation of WP:NOTEVERYTHING - it doesn't. The less of a relationship a potential subject (in this case Barbara Gibb) has with important subjects, the less important the potential subject is. Parents (Hugh and Barbara) possibly notable, grandparents (Hugh Gibb, Edith Yardley; Ernest Pass, Mary Ann Crompton) less so and maybe not enough to cross the magic threshold into notability. The great-grandparents almost certainly didn't live long enough to coexist with their great-grandchildren. The point still stands, no reason was actually given for deletion. You can't use the circular argument that WP:NOTPOLICY means WP:NOTPOLICY is voided for not being policy and therefore can quote WP:NOTINHERITED essay as being policy, that's even more fallacious. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are being witlessly pedantic, and run the risk of making like the fabulous oozlum-woozlum bird. The rationale for the nomination is clear, even if it is not put in appropriate wikipedia jargon or approved phraseology.TheLongTone (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that pedantic possibly, but when someone's passionately spent quite an effort researching and presenting this material, I think being pedantic is necessary. Witless? Please, tht's just a baseless personal attack, but fortunately for you my sense of humour is strong enough to laugh at your pathetic attempts to change the subject. Let's go back to the beginning, how does this article violate the terms of WP:GNG; in particular is there any lack of coverage? Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, come now. Read the text. I was not saying you were witless: I was so describing your pedantry. And read the other text: it's all about the BG's, all the refs are about the BeeGees apart from one article on a BeeGees fansite about...you will never guess...The Mother of the BeeGees. Knock me down with a feather. Somebody has taken the time to write this article because he is an obsessive who has run out of bee gees B-sides and out-takes to create articles about.TheLongTone (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. But they didn't cite WP:NOTINHERITED, they cited WP:BIO, which is an official guideline, and contains this section which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." Also, you say "You can't use the circular argument that WP:NOTPOLICY means WP:NOTPOLICY is voided for not being policy", except that WP:NOTPOLICY specifically invokes itself as an example: "It is not a good idea to quote essays—including this one—as though they are Wikipedia approved policy." (emphasis mine) Just above, it also says "Essays and proposals should only be cited as opinion or advice, not admonishment." In other words, they (including both WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTPOLICY itself) should be used to aid in understanding, not as blunt instruments with which to pummel people in a debate. — Gwalla | Talk 20:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO (and doesn't qualify as any of the categories that have more specific criteria; if you count her claimed singing career, that clearly doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, as it doesn't even appear to be WP:verifiable—the article even hedges by only saying she's described as such in Bee Gees literature). That isn't an essay, btw, it's an official guideline. Doesn't even meet WP:GNG really: no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, just some stuff from brothersgibb.com (hardly third-party) and passing mentions in the context of her sons. The only source that would seem at first glance to qualify is the Fox News article "Gibb matriarch loses third son with Robin's death", but the headline is misleading; if you read it, it's actually about the deaths of the brothers and barely talks about her at all. — Gwalla | Talk 19:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Headline says it all: she is not "Barbara Gibb": she is the "mother of the Bee Gees".TheLongTone (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per WP:BIO, relationships do not confer notability, the subject doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Now, if assuming that this article is about a singer then it clearly crashes at WP:MUSIC. Hitro talk 20:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This appears to qualify as a G7 request as there are no other substantive edits to the article. Alternately, no-one has disputed the asserted lack of encyclopedic notability. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Miraglia[edit]

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

Since I wrote this 3 years ago, I have become more aware of the importance of reliable sources, and many of the current sources are borderline, if best -- mentions in newspapers of a performance date, coffee houses reiterating the standard "strong steady thumb" (probably written by a PR person and used again and again by promotional outlets), occasional mentions in local paper such as the Ambler Patch. The NY Times only mentions performance dates. The Bob Gottlieb review appears in a for-sale music site. I had hoped to find substantive reviews over the past 3 years. What is lacking by December 2013 are serious reviews by music critics (even in local papers) which suggest a serious artist at work or that there is some kind of audience building. I know pageview tallies are not a formal criterion for notability, but the current pageview count of only page 4 pageviews per day indicates a lack of attention. Accordingly, as initial creator, I am unfortunately recommending this article be deleted. Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7. Author requests deletion. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:54, 28 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. Tone 18:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Zwirn[edit]

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

Notability issues were noted in 2011 but not followed on. I am not so sure how notable this ... nutritional supplement executive ... is. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable founder of a non-notable nutritional supplement company. A search for coverage found nothing at all. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he's a notable businessman or martial artist.Jakejr (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shaun Shane[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nayeebramhana[edit]

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

Unsourced essay. IP editors removing PROD so to AfD we go. Alexf^(talk) 14:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Uncited and borderline incoherent caste article; gets twenty-eight incomprehensible GHits so it looks as though not even WP:TNT can save this one. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on GBooks, not much anywhere else. Nothing in the article demonstrates suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN. WWGB (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young Chozen[edit]

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

Only cite is a self-published source. There are no reliable, independent sources that establish notability. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I, the article creator and another contributor, are fixing the problems with this new article. Dolive21 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Updates at Dolive21 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, artist appears notable (international coverage), article simply needs reliable citations.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added some references which were easy to find, plenty of hits on google. Article just needs further work. Acb314 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 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. A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usama abbasi[edit]

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

Autobiography by someone who won a prize. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article doesn't even claim that he won a prize: he "participated in" a 2011 blog award but is not listed in the winners (leaving aside whether that would be a notable award anyway). No evidence of attained biographical notability. (This could even be a CSD A7.) AllyD (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Yet another self-promotional article by someone who is not notable in any way.TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:CSD#A7) not notable & promotional. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:16, 28 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. Tone 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NuvoSonic[edit]

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

This page was prodded because there is evidence that the firm NuvoSonic has closed down: "I can find no evidence of the continued existence of this company. Both external links are dead, the domain is up for sale, and http://www.trademarkia.com/seascout-78396357.html says that the tradename has been abandoned. May not have been Notable in any case, but defunct, it's certainly not Notable.". But it is part of the history of diver-detection techniques which are a significant part of underwater anti-frogman precautions, and describes ultrasound diver-detection techniques which are so used. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no evidence that anyone cared about the products of this now-defunct company. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Would the creator like to explain why he created this page? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It is part of the topic of anti-frogman precautions and underwater intruder detection and thus of underwater security in general. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:37, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Run Sheldon[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Run Sheldon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

There is some coverage of the game - see the references in the article - but at the same time, it seems a Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill game I don't think we should have an article about. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There already exists an open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run Sheldon, however the nominator did not add the AfD template to the article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources -- Gamezebo and GameTrailers are two reviews from reliable WP:VG/RS sources. I'd ideally want to see 3+ reviews from our RSes. But this is certainly not a run-of-the-mill game if the entire games industry is concerned, most games don't even get mentioned, let alone get reviews. For other articles included, [12] is definitely not reliable, they charge for posting articles. [13] and [14] look semi-okay, although they don't have an official reliable source status. Other reviews include [15][16][17] etc. although these aren't yet considered RSes, but I believe do supplement GNG. The rest of the hits are press releases or non-reliable sources. Of course, notability of the topic is independent on how the article is written and frankly it's written better than most our game articles, so I don't agree with WP:GAMECRUFT issues. (Posting the comment on this AfD, since it's a later one and properly announced.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (changed from Delete) for the following reasons:

A good place for this article is the Gaming Wikia. Willkey77 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by the notability guideline, specifically WP:GNG -- lack or existence of sources covering the subject (your second link says this directly). It can be supplemented by secondary topical notability guidelines (such as what WP:NVG would have been if it had passed). Only then primarily content guidelines like WP:VG/GL are considered. There is a difference between how an article is written and if the topic is notable. (A very poorly written article could exist on a notable topic and a seemingly well-written article could exist on a non-notable topic.) In a deletion discussion you have to address notability, not article content. For example, I have provided multiple sources above that I believe satisfy notability (GNG). For a valid deletion argument, you have to show that these sources are unsuitable for GNG or that there is an otherwise strong argument for deletion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I also value the experience you're bringing here. I understood that notability for a game should also reflect 'its importance to the industry'. The GameTrailers review concludes with 'It's not a revolutionary game, but there's more than enough that's fresh and fun (...) to make it a very worthwhile download for any fan of the ever-popular endless-runner'. My feeling is that this is an Endless running game which hardly deserves a page on its own. But I admit here that I have more to learn to make the right judgements. Thanks Willkey77 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Importance to the industry" does not mean "it has to be important". In fact, GameTrailers saying "It's not a revolutionary game" is a direct description of game's importance on the industry -- in this case, none really. What we need is a description of (non)importance, not proof of importance. Being important would most likely imply being notable, but the vast majority of games are completely unimportant as individual games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what that line importance to the industry line was intended to to suggest but I highly doubt that the intent was a game has to be revolutionary to be notable. It should be noted that there is nothing in the main notability guideline (WP:N) that even remotely suggests that as a criteria. For those reasons I think this article should be kept.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed from Delete to Weak keep based on the discussion. Willkey77 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Just barely enough coverage with some of the sources like Gamezebo, GameTrailers, and 148apps, which are considered reliable per consensus at WikiProject Video Games's Source evaluation page. As HellKnowz is saying, the "importance" clause is more about whether or not its getting coverage by third party reliable sources, not so much its actual impact or originality due to its gameplay. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it just did not make any sense that being revolutionary would have been considered a notability requirement or why there were not a whole lot more AFD's if that was the case.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its more meant to differentiate from no-name video games that receive zero coverage/articles about it at all. Like some random fan game put out for free that received 7 downloads on some random website. Or the 207th hit for "Puzzle Game" on the App Store that no one's ever heard of. That sort of thing. This game shows its importance because reliable sources have chosen to write previews/reviews of it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Gilbert[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement, landing just on the bad side of the notability guidelines Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Simply writing 3 books doesn't grant you an article. I notice the article creator has gone on a spree of creating articles of authors with questionable notability. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and spammy to boot. (I am always very suspicious of any article with entrepreneur in the intro) Can find nothing substantial & reliable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:Notability (people). Self-referential references. asnac (talk) 18:34, 29 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. Michig (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse attachment bolt[edit]

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

Can't find sources to show this meets our notability criteria Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I have readily found several truly independent sources (& added some info into the article). I even didn't look for numerous synonyms. Clearly, the article has a potential for expansion. - Altenmann >t 11:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the (in my mind) more popular Hex bolt has no Article, and the Carriage bolt simply gets redirected to Screw, I too wonder about the WP:Notability of this device? Sources mostly seem to be places that will sell one. I !vote delete, but am very open to a merge with the Treehouse's Supports section. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 11:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classic "WP:Other stuff doesn't exist" argument. If we weren't wasting time deleting what we do have, then maybe more of us would be inclined to write obviously missing articles like Carriage bolt. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMO, only one of the cited sources is anywhere near good enough, being 3-4 sentences long. The rest don't measure up. One or two sentences in Treehouse would be okay, but not an entire separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's obscure, it's niche and it's novel. However it exists and independent note has been made of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Refs 2,3 and 4 provide sufficient notability considering the niche application of TABs, also known as 'Garnier limbs'. There's also [18][19][20][21][22][23] and several others.- Mr X 13:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Can anyone explain why perpetual incremental deletionist Red Pen is so intent on blanking and stripping sources from this article (to the point of 3RR) whilst it's at AfD, against our ancient policy that we avoid doing so to articles whilst at AfD? This is just trying to stack the deck against a decent review through AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Andy, as you know, it is because our policies require content to be supported by reliably published sources and also require that anyone wishing to restore that content WP:BURDEN supply appropriate sources before restoring the material. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a misapplication of WP:BURDEN. Primary sources can be reliable for factual information, especially when the sources are from widely-recognized leaders in the art.- MrX 14:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - a primary source making promotional claims about its products is most obviously NOT a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The above statement is correct, but as it stands, IMO the article has close to none promotional fluff ("bestest", "firstest", "beloved by customers", "relentlessly pursuing"- none of this). If you have objections to particular statements, please mark them as {{dubious}} or such. - Altenmann >t 20:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is a lack of evidence significant coverage by reliable third party sources for a stand alone article the majority of sources that have been edit-warred back into the article are non reliable / primary sources. a redirect/merge to a parent article would also be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC) temporarily striking pending review of rewrite being done by Mr X. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you not see the sources that I listed above? For example, #5.- Mr X 14:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I find some slight book coverage of Garnier limbs; none of "treehouse attachment bolts". I think an article on the former might be (barely) justified, but not for a general term. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This good source explains that "As a whole, limb system designs have been referred to as “tree anchor bolts” or TABs. But it's the GL that started it all." As there are obvious alternatives to deletion, such as merger with treehouse, our editing policy indicates that we should not delete this page. Andrew (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a long history of attempts at inserting promotion, but while this is annoying it is not a valid reason for deletion. The subject itself is indeed notable. VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 28 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) 01:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CapDesk[edit]

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

Basically, this looks like an academic software project that has a few citations in other academic publications. Probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find sources that discuss the product although I found one that used it as an example in discussing security issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 31 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. I am not making a redirect since the topic is not directly mentioned in the Buffy article. Another target is possible, still. Tone 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Aurelius[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional cult. No sources indicate that the fictional cult is notable separate from the fiction in which it exists. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No secondary sources. - Altenmann >t 11:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer where, lacking independent notability, this fictional concept can be discussed within context to its notable series. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:25, 31 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) 01:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Walle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet notability of WP:MUSIC: No non-trivial coverage in reliable sources; apparently no charted records; less than two albums released by major or independent record labels Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak delete This one is borderline, but I think ultimately falls short of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Safiel (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:28, 28 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Spahiu[edit]

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

CV. Laun chba ller 09:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete a lot of grand claims but no reliable sources to back up. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This brief article was all I could really find that looked like coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siraj ur-rehman[edit]

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

Can not nominate article per WP:BLPPROD, article includes no sources since it's inception. I was alerted to it's existence by ip user possible trying to remove unsourced content, but it's not helpful at all. Cannot find any reliable sources verifying it's notability. Bluefist ^talk 05:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best path to notability is to verify that the Government of Saudi Arabia gave him an honorary PhD, honorary doctorates are rare, this is typically considered enough recognition under WP:PROF. -- GreenC 21:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many claims, no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 29 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. Courcelles 08:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Pennum Parayathathu[edit]

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

PROD removed by an IP without explanation. There is no evidence of notability of this Malayalam novel. Couldn't find any independent reliable sources reviewing/discussing this novel. Salih (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I would say that having a movie made of your book (Streetlight (film)) is a strong indicator of notability, but as the book's author and the film-maker are both Sankar (film director), this goes away. With nothing left, I concur. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, there may be some Malayalam sources that I can't read addressing this topic, but I couldn't find anything substantial in English. Happy to strike this opinion if someone can come up with something not in English. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

District of North Vancouver Fire Department[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing notable, and no references showing otherwise. Accept for AfC, but I can;t imagine why DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial references, purely local interest Wsanders (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. fire departments are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jannelle So[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. an unremarkable career. her IMDB entry doesn't show much. [24] LibStar (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does being a court side reporter for the Philippine Basketball Association in the 1990s count for something? –H T D 03:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if it is covered significantly in third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is covered significantly in third party coverage? –H T D 08:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that means if her being a court side reporter was covered in independent reliable sources, something that could be difficult to prove given that she was active in the 90's and any info from that era can be pretty difficult to find. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. This says "So was a courtside reporter in the Philippine Basketball Association before she took a big risk by leaving for the States in 2003", amongst other things. –H T D 05:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a newspaper column though, and I'm not sure if column coverage is considered a claim to notability. ~~I'll remain neutral on this for now, but unless someone else finds more coverage I'm leaning towards delete.~~ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of fact from columns are reliable sources, unless it's a gossip rag or it is purely opinion. I don't see the rationale in segregating regular articles and "columns", as long as WP:RS is concerned. Either it's reliable or not. –H T D 11:04, 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, czar ♔ 03:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue here is that Ms. So is apparently a popular personality based on fansites, blogs, facebook, etc., there is a clear lack of WP:RS so far. This is a hazard when the subject is popular in an expatriate/immigrant community. Despite that, she actually has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Those sources include a profile in The Phillipine Daily Inquirer, receiving a significant award for a report on human trafficking, and being a regular columnist for the leading Phillipine news site in the US. IMO, these qualify under the WP:GNG--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she won a major award, which to me is an automatic claim to notability. There's also major coverage of her from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Pearcy[edit]

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

Article is about a model, cited to her webpage and her company website. I can't see any great claims to notability, other than appearing in an unknown capacity on 2 TV shows. This seems to be a personal profile, littered with unsourced personal details about Pearcy and her family. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only link I could find with any sort of content was an article on ArticlesBase which is apparently blacklisted, and it does not make a strong case for notability anyway. One editor has pointed out on the talk page that her work on the shows mentioned was so minor as to be overlooked by IMDB. Ivanvector (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little found from a Google search, nothing from Highbeam. --Michig (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daire O'Brien[edit]

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

I am not convinced of notability , and 2 of the 4 refs are about minor negative matters. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:24, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a google search for "Daire O'Brien rugby RTE" brings up a bunch of good hits, such as his official profile on RTE's website. FWIW if my experience of visiting Ireland is anything to go by, Rugby League is one of the country's most popular sports and I can well believe he is a household name over there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced with independent WP:RS. Passes WP:GNG --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The two relists haven't resulted in any further input, so there seems little point relisting again. Michig (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossing Church (Minnesota)[edit]

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

Purely promotional article for a church. Nothing more notable than any other local church, except its ability to send out press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Buried in the long list of mostly unhelpful references are a few that actually do appear to be substantive independent coverage, suggesting that the church and its style of ministry may be a bit beyond the run of the mill. [25] [26][27] It's all local and I don't think it's enough by itself to meet WP:GNG, and I couldn't find anything substantive from a non-local source, but if someone else turns up something like that, I'd be open to reconsidering. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure at this stage: This doesn't come from a press release. It says the membership is 2000, which would make it a megachurch, but that is defined according to weekly attendance, and according to the article, that is only (!) 1500. And I'm finding it hard to find a source for the attendance, which suggests it may not be passing notability standards. And I would lean to a delete per WP:TNT - the article is a mess, with a long, unreferenced criticism section. St Anselm (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the most recent attendance noted in the article is 2,400, which would make it a megachurch, and means it could be presumed to be notable. St Anselm (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Might not be run of the mill, but it needs more sources to say so. Fails GNG per above (all local, etc.). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - appears to pass at least one factor in my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:19, 28 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. Deletion is unopposed. Sandstein 09:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khem Veasna[edit]

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

A Google search shows this politician having very little significance. His party has never won any seats in Cambodia's National Assembly or Senate. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References are all to Facebook or the same local newspaper (one I can not, admittedly read), party's got nowhere. On the other hand "Later elected as a representative in 2003 at that time he was 38 years old" - representative to what? He stands or falls under wp:NPOLITICIAN based on that (Google hasn't helped me). Neonchameleon (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment quite possibly the same person as Khim Veasna? If kept, article requires a very substantial rewrite. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete classic case of the gap between existence and notability. SPA has not provided any RS for notability for what they admit is a very minor political party or its leader. The only RS linked to the party was a link to a profile in the Phnom Penh Post that is no longer available. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Valimaki[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - almost made three tier limit but not. Lack of references. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about an MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the fights necessary to meet WP:NMMA and the article has no references.Jakejr (talk) 18:34, 29 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 keep pursuant to WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article reappeared barely improved from the deleted version. The new source is a tiny online article without a named author that sums up the same information that is found in every other casual mention of the term online. I don't know if it counts as OR but it sure comes close to fitting "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day." Tegrenath (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep the topic is notable with plenty of academic references available. the real issue is whether this should be called frequency illusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly it's easier to find sources when one uses the name that Arnold Zwicky used for it. ☺ The informal name used heretofore is what caused all of the misapprehensions in the 2nd AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, to be clear, I am only opposed to the use of the "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" as the primary label for this subject, not the notability of the cognitive phenomenon itself. I myself have not found plenty of academic sources that use the term, so I would encourage anyone who does to add them to the current article or post them here or on the talk page for review. Tegrenath (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- A source search reveals that this 'term' was not invented in one day, but has been broadly in use for several years.Scott P. (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user scottyp is right. this is well within Wikipedia criterias.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if it is an example of frequency illusion, recency illusion, clustering illusion, or pareidolia. It may be a combination of some of those, or one of the other cognitive biases. If I had to choose, I'd say it's an example of clustering, but I'm not a researcher in those things. As originally used in the newspaper, it's references "close to each other", eg. this Monday, that Tuesday, and now Wednesday; or in the paper this morning, on the TV this afternoon, a friend asks at supper; not necessarily in time or in space but in different contexts close enough for the mind to "link". htom (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After examining the subsequent comments of the nominator, I think AfD is the wrong process to be using, since the primary controversy involves the desired name of the article. Since this already pretty much qualifies as a snow keep, I am going to close this AfD early and set up an RfC at the article's talk page regarding moving of the article to the title Frequency illusion. Safiel (talk) 23:23, 28 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 Guerrilla marketing. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover marketing[edit]

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

This article is a wp:fork of guerrilla marketing Salimfadhley (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, don't delete: some of it appears to be valid content on an established subject. Let's dump the unsourced bits and move the remainder to the guerilla marketing article. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to guerrilla marketing] --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of pantheists[edit]

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

Pantheism is not a religion, it is a type of belief, found in number of religions, like it has been described if you look the main article. It has 100s of million followers, so are we going to add each of them who are popular? Wikipedia:GEVAL needs to be checked. If still so important, it should be merged into "Pantheism", but title would be "Notable pantheists", we don't have List of monotheists, or List of polytheists, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move- Move article to List of notable pantheists, this list is interesting and informative, yet the original concern is valid. By inserting the word notable into the article title, the original concern would be suitably addressed. Scott P. (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better if the list is kept inside the article Pantheism itself. This list is just 19,000 Bytes. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and the suggested move to "notable" is fine with me. It seems to me that the page passes WP:LISTN, and that's that. We have pantheism, and there is no concern that that lacks notability, thus passing LISTN, and so the only problem would be if there was unreliability of sourcing individual persons on the list as belonging there, and that argument has not been made. The "otherstuff" arguments do not really work, and in fact we have numerous list pages about persons who were/are atheists. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways I think I already had enough from here. Obviously the name of the article has been changed now. I withdraw from here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Since the nominator has withdrawn and the article has been moved to a less problematic title, I think this discussion can be closed. Novusuna ^talk 19:07, 28 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 A Course in Miracles. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Course in Miracles - Original Edition[edit]

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

This article was created by the publisher of this book for promotional purposes and does not comply with WP:CONFLICT policy. This article is essentially a duplicate article of the A Course in Miracles article, creating a content fork, thus according to WP:REDUNDANTFORK policy, this article should be deleted or merged with the main article. Scott P. (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the essential materials. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, certainly no justification for a FORK article that suits nobody but the publisher; as a search term it's actually quite unlikely (in any case the search box would find the main article before this one if typed in sequentially) so I'd not oppose a straight delete (advertising), but I guess a merge is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page was NOT created for promotional purposes and it is far from a duplication of the Article with a similar title. [The publishers are making no profit on the sale of these books. All the funds go back into the non-profit to print more books.] It was created to clarify the differences between these two publications. This book [ACIM OE] is an altogether separate publication and deserves a separate article. One solution might be to list A Course in Miracles as "A Course in Miracles - Foundation for Inner Peace" and the second book, "A Course in Miracles - Course in Miracles Society [ACIM OE]". And another page would be "A Course in Miracles - Thetford Edition". All of these three books exist. No wonder the public is confused. In this way the public would know that each Article is speaking about the publication by that organization.

This ACIM OE Article could be added once more by any number of Course students. The source is not the point. The INFORMATION it contains is. For many years Course students have been trying to bring to light all of the facts that are in this article and they have been rebuffed over and over by those who do not want this information known. If that's what WIKI wants, then the result will most likely be more confusion.

I am Rev Reja Joy Green [spiritdejoie], one of the founding members of Course in Miracles Society and publisher of ACIM OE. What are our options? Would the Article be better if a different Course student submitted it? Could we make the POV more neutral? Could we change the name to "A Course in Miracles - Course in Miracles Society". Please let us know.

Thank you sincerely. Spiritdejoie (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is a great new article, or article draft. The ACIM "Original Edition" is the near-replica of the third of ACIM´s three cardinal Versions. Original Handscript, Ortiginal Typescript and Original Edition are the Trinity of ACIM´s original words performed by the priginal team of author, Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford. I am speaking for a large European readership when I say that we welcome, endorse, support and honor all the helpers and stewards´ efforts to share the Original REdition, 3rd cardinal version of the Course with the world. A historic agreement between the FACIM/FIP publisher and the SIMS has opened all venues for an international and free readership of this historic compendium by the original Team, the author and two recipients/scribes, from 1972, made public through the Hugh Lynn Cacye A.R.E. library on November 29, 1999. As soon as this Original Edition article is published on Wikipedia, we will have a team ready to adopt its relevant, crucial and historic content on several European Wikipedia sites as well. Thanks everyone for the great work. Freedom of Information, of speech, of expression and the Spirit of collaboration and Oneness may be reflected in all presentations of this Masterpiece in human history, born of Love and Wisdom, a gift of God for all times. Maz Weber-Caspers (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Maz Weber-Caspers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you. But all this is missing the point; nobody is suggesting deleting the original article, simply that this new one should be merged with the original, since one article on the topic, mentioning the various editions, is clearly sufficient for the encyclopedia. Indeed, when there is a history of varying editions, it is actually helpful if these are compared and the history explained in a single article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would be great although the overseerers of the page A Course in Miracles are under the opinion that the ACIM OE edition is "unauthorized " . It would be surprising if they allow any info in the ACIM OE to appear anywhere on their Article. We would welcome the opportunity. Spiritdejoie (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So long as there is a disclaimer clarifying the fact that "the publication of this pre-publication rough-draft manuscript was never authorized by any of the three original editors of ACIM, and that the last of the three editors to pass on, Kenneth Wapnick, did not personally approve in any way of the publication of this manuscript, nor of the use of the name "Original Edition" to describe this manuscript, then I will have no objection to including a brief history of it in the main article. (BTW, Kenneth Wapnick "passed on" on Friday, Dec. 27th, in case you hadn't heard.) I have also read that this manuscript copy was first obtained from the ARE files via illegal means. That little historical note should probably also be referenced there. So, therefore, if you would be comfortable with all of these little details being published in your edition's section within the main article, then of course....

Wikipedia aims to provide a unified narrative, not a "fragmented" one. Ultimately, properly documented facts are supposed to prevail over mere personal opinion around here (despite the fact that right about now you may not be thinking that is the case). Scott P. (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS- If you had any reliable third-party documentation, that was up to Wikipedia standards, to support your "counter-claim" that Thetford and Schucman actually once attempted to publish your edition, but then somehow failed, then of course that properly cited reference of yours could go in there as well.Scott P. (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following should bring clarity to the issue -

The "Original Edition" is derived from the third retyping of the A Course In Miracles manuscript by scribe Helen Schucman and co-scribe Bill Thetford, which was completed in 1972.
Helen and Bill asked the A.R.E. if they would publish their 1972 document, but the A.R.E. declined.[Documentation to follow.]
Helen and Bill then met Ken Wapnick who told them the 1972 document needed additional editing work to be 'publisher ready'.
Helen was convinced by Ken to re-edit the manuscript which they did for a year. Bill disagreed with the re-editing and moved to California.
The newer fully edited version of the manuscript was copyrighted and published by The Foundation for Inner Peace in 1975. Because this version of ACIM held the original copyright, it's sometimes incorrectly referred to as the only "authorized" ACIM edition.
In 2003 the copyright was overturned, and the copyright claim on the 1975 version of ACIM published by the Foundation for Inner Peace was deemed null and void. All prior manuscripts of ACIM were deemed to be in the public domain.
The (largely unedited) 1972 version of the ACIM manuscript was unknown for 24 years. It has now been legally published by several organizations under the title "A Course in Miracles".[28]
Since the scribe and co-scribe passed away in 1981 and 1988, respectively, the publication of A Course in Miracles - Original Edition was not directly endorsed by them. However, with the exception of minor changes in grammar and punctuation, the Original Edition represents the 1972 version of their work.
A Course in Miracles - Original Edition has been legally published and exists in the same sense as various versions of the BIBLE exist. Like the 1975 version of ACIM, the Original Edition is in the public domain and use of the term "authorized" is moot.
Allowing ALL versions of this Course to flourish in freedom is the goal here. --

--KarenBentley (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)December 29,2013 — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User talk:Spiritdejoie|Spiritdejoie]]

(talk) 12:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were willing to start with a section that went something like this:

Prepublication manuscripts

Between 1995 and 2000, due to interest by some ACIM students in attempting to void copyright interests held by the FIP, two prepublication manuscripts were discovered. The methods used to obtain these prepublication manuscripts have been described as illegal.^[1] Since that time, one organization, the CIMS, has widely published one of these manuscripts as what it claims to be the "Original Edition" of ACIM, claiming to have proof (which has yet to arise) that Thetford somehow had wanted their edition of ACIM to be published, and did not personally approve of any subsequent edits that Schucman and Wapnick made without his direct involvement. To the contrary, numerous individuals who knew Thetford during this time period have reported that Thetford did in fact approve of the subsequent edits made by Schucman and Wapnick.^[2]^[3]

then I would be willing to work with you... Scott P. (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just received an emergency page from my office, and I may have to be out for the rest of the day on this one. Sorry.Scott P. (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being new to this I am not entirely sure if this will reach the right person(s) but I will attempt to anyway. A COURSE IN MIRACLES, IMHO as both the publisher of an alternate version ( The SPARKLY) as well as having been one of the principals in both copy right cases ( In the USA/ NYC as well as Australia/ Melbourne)can NOT be treated as another book, but may I suggest Wikipedia already has accepted examples of what is and will continue to happen with ACIM/ The Course and that is THE BIBLE. While The Course is and was not meant to be a religion, it is certainly a RELIGIOUS document, much like The Bible and is undergoing the same process of editing and re-editing and "factionalizing" as the Bible seems to have been responsible for since it was first found, copied, published, translated, issued and reissued, As well, as being the basis of different religious establishments and sects.

All this I would suggest, is just happening at a much faster pace, due obviously to the ability of technology to make immediate, what had previously taken centuries. Now that Dr. Kenneth Wapnick has passed, the history of ACIM in the world, as it has been embraced and will continue to be, as these threads from the single origin begin to become more and more popularized, as ACIM and its teaching of "forgiveness" rises from "cult to culture." Maryanne Williamson running for the US House of Representatives has already brought ACIM to light within a California, as she is examined for office in the light of her association with ACIM and her writings. Yet, she is but one example of an author that has and is popularizing ACIM and allowing it to makes it way in the world much as the Bible grew from it infancy to where it is today worldwide.

It was FIP/FACIM/Penguin Books that opened the way for the validity and voracity of their own published editions to be questioned, and for newly updated editions of earlier edits with more inclusion of previously EXCLUDED material, to become popular alternatives for the contemporary readers; and I guarantee this will continue, as the earliest material is popularized by books about to be published. So it was their attempt to defend the copyright, that changed the face of the ACIM World, WORLD WIDE and that will be happening at a more rapid pace with the passing of Dr Wapnick and the loss his foundation will not recover from due to his own celebrity and claims to authority.

It would behoove the forward thinking people of Wikipedia, to consider this in the light of its already accepted policies and practices in regard to The Bible. There is much more fact to be made available now, and Wikipedia has the ability to eliminate the fiction and rumor, by letting the facts and truth come out as this Movement of Spirit grows and becomes what it was meant to be by those who embrace it as their bible and path.

In short, while all and every edition/version of ACIM will have its origins in the manuscripts left to us by Drs. Helen Schucman and William Thetford, the history, facts and principals of the several editions/versions available throughout the world (The FIP/FACIM, The OE, The Sparkly (Thetford Foundation, AU and Diamond Clear Vision/ The Borderland-501c3), the Scholarly Edition by Miracles In Action Press) are much dis-similar and have an expanding place within the linear history and lexicon of what has become known as A COURSE IN MIRACLES (movement, religion, cult, community).15:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Ted Poppe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thpjr52 (talk • contribs) — Thpjr52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A satellite article discussing the complex history of the various versions and editions of ACIM would clearly be desirable, but we can't do it working together if tendentious and inaccurate characterizations like "rough draft" or claims like "illegally obtained", with no supporting evidence or legal arguments, are allowed in it. One side could demand this, and the other side could demand that the FACIM version be described in unflattering terms for reasons that could be documented, and then where are we? If that isn't possible, some other means should be found to accommodate the various points of view. The present situation, where only one side is allowed to express their point of view, fails NPOV. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which side? No, don't answer that. The point here is that ALL contentious claims, and all quotations, must be cited from reliable, verifiable sources. I have no idea whether the many claims above are true or false, nor who may be right, and only proper citations will answer the case. Meanwhile, a merge and redirect seems the only sensible course, but it will lead to very little text unless more reliable sources are provided by any side. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGESTED TOPIC to add to current WIKI page A Course in Miracles

Pre-Publication manuscripts[edit]

When the copyright was in force, between 1975 and 2003, there were manuscripts that were published that were “Pre-Publication manuscripts”. “Publication” refers to the Foundation for Inner Peace edition ^[4] first copyrighted and published in 1975 and “Pre-Publication manuscript” refers to the 1972 manuscript given to Hugh Lynn Cayce, discovered in 1999 and published in 2000 by Course in Miracles Society CIMS^[5] as Jesus' Course in Miracles^[6] until receiving a temporary restraining order. Distribution of “Jesus’ Course in Miracles” would continue in 2003, after the Copyright was voided. The “A Course in Miracles-Original Edition was published in 2006.^[7]

In 1999, during the copyright litigation, it was discovered that a copy of an early manuscript was seen at the Association for Research and Enlightenment [A.R.E.] Library. Permission may or may have not been given to copy this manuscript. That will never be known. The people at A.R.E. claim permission was not given.^[8]

Litigants of a copyright suit are entitled to copies of all relevant documents in the Library of Congress. In 2000, anonymous parties released this material illegally, in digital format, onto the internet.^[9]

After the Copyright was voided, all of the prior works of Helen Schucman were deemed free from copyright. ^[10]^[11] This includes the manuscript found in the A.R.E. Library, the original handscript, the original typescript, as well as all prior works of the scribe, Helen Schucman.

There are today many “Publication manuscripts” available to the public. In addition to the Foundation for Inner Peace publication ^[12], there is A Course in Miracles-Original Edition published by CIMS in 2006^[13]; Sparkly ^[14] and the Urtext^[15]

Spiritdejoie (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References[edit]

^ pending
^ penidng
^ pending
^ http://acim.org
^ Course in Miracles Society [CIMS] a non-profit organization
^ Jesus’ Course in Miracles ISBN 978-0976420002
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-097642000-7-1 ACIM OE
^ http://www.miraclestudies.net/HLV2.html
^ http://www.miraclestudies.net/urtext.html/ Miracle Studies article
^ FINAL ORDER
^ Trial Background
^ http://acim.org/ FIP
^ A Course in Miracles - Original Edition On Line
^ http://acimsearch.org/ Sparkly
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780981698458/ URTEXT

------ End of suggested main article section ------

Thank you for that rewrite. I have just inserted a sort of a compromise back in the main article. Please see this most recent main article edit at Study editions. Of course you are free to make correction edits to my first cumbersome attempt at this section, to augment it with pertinent properly documented points of your own, or to simply 'smooth it out'. So long as your edits are duly documented, as neutral as possible, reasonable, and succinct, you will continue to do well. Perhaps we can go on from there.... and again, thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insertion of the topic "Study Editions" into the main ACIM Wiki A Course in Miracles. Your first effort at writing this section is excellent and much appreciated. The wording sounds unbiased and factual and the information provided is what many Course students have wanted to see in print for a very long time. As you wrote, "perhaps we can go on from there...and again Thanks." <3 Wishing you and everyone a Blessed Holiday and New Year. Spiritdejoie (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There might also be inserted some pictures of the ACIM OE, Sparkly and Urtext. What say you? Spiritdejoie (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Go ahead. The images need to be copyright-free - the easiest way is for their authors to post them on Wikimedia Commons, releasing the copyright. If in doubt, seek help as it's tricky the first time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chiswick Chap! Quick question - Carol Howe, friend of Bill Thetford and author of his BIOGRAPHY, sent me a photo of both of them with permission to use on the William Thetford wiki page. When I upload it into the COMMONS, will I be permitted to use it since I didn't create it but I have permission of the owner who did? Spiritdejoie (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, if you're not the owner you'll have to get the owner to fill in an OTRS ticket to certify they really did give permission. An alternative is for them to post it on Flickr (or similar) with a CC-BY-SA or similar shareware license; you can then provide a link to that page when you post the image on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 31 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. Sandstein 09:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Douglas[edit]

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

References rely primarily on single source, user has created several pages on non-notable people and subject. Anishwiki12 (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After following the ref links, none of them led to truly neutral third party sources, but they were all essentially self-promotional. Scott P. (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article suggests only self-published work with no real claim of notability. The only coverage I found was a couple of brief interview. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atlatsa Resources Corporation[edit]

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

No indication of notability, official web site is "suspended," penny-stock, etc. See also Atlatsa Resources, which was speedily-deleted several months ago as a copyright violation. I considered WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous advertising) but that would be a stretch and an AFD is a "stronger" form of deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate suitability for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Óttar Magnús Karlsson[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL - no senior games for club or Iceland national team Shirt58 (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFOOTBALL, unsourced BLP. Ajaxfiore_talk 03:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HLD Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hot Lap Dance Club

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

Probably a WP:CSD#G4 candidate per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Lap Dance Club, except that in the interim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HLD Club was closed as no consensus (the only "keep" was from a user now blocked as a sockpuppet of someone probably related to the subject). While I think notability may be arguable in the case of this subject, I don't think it's really separable from Louis J. Posner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The club was the location of a handful of events that received fleeting media attention, and was mentioned in passing, but other than the not-particularly-meaningful ranking, I don't see that the club itself ever warranted much in the way of coverage. It's really only by accident that this recreation of the originally deleted article has survived as long as it has. JohnInDC (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability other than in connection to the problematic Louis J. Posner article. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Medical School Physiology Quiz[edit]

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

Study quiz competition. No real evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not received enough coverage in reliable sources. Also, interschool competitions are almost-never notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 28 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. Sandstein 09:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Springston Lynch[edit]

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

Unable to find enough material to prove notability, including WP:ARTIST. I have just been able to find a couple of short blurbs in a couple of books and information from art galleries. CaroleHenson (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed hard to find online materials about this artist. Google Books offers only snippets of the book that's cited in the footnotes, Encounters with Paradise: Views of Hawaii and its People [29] ; the snippets do include enough of the index to confirm that Lynch is discussed on several pages of the book, though not the content of the discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
Not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
No major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work.
The person's work has not become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, and has had no significant critical attention.

Sorry, but this needs to go. --gilgongo (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Genevieve Springston Lynch is one of a small number of Hawaiian painters who worked prior to the contemporary era. Her work is in Hawaii's main art musium. Encounters with Paradise, the principal book on artists of Hawaii devotes 3 pages (253-255) to this artist and mentions her twice in other parts of the book (pp. 211 &2 13). Hiart (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An artist important to the history of painting in Hawaii. Haa900 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to AskArt.com, the artist is discussed in 4 different reference books, with a 3 page discussion in Encounters with Paradise. The books are:

Dunbier, Lonnie Pierson, The Artists Bluebook (2005)
Davenport, Ray, Davenport's Art Reference: The Gold Edition (1999)
Falk, Peter Hastings, Who Was Who in American Art, 1564-1975 (1999)
Forbes, David, Encounters with Paradise: Views of Hawaii and Its People 1778-1941 (1992)

She is also discussed in Artists in California, 1786-1940 by Edan Hughes. although this fifth references is not listed in AskArt.com. Her c. 1940 painting Landscape at Kaliuwa'a is currently on display in the Hawaiian gallery of the Honolulu Museum of Art. Wmpearl (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's good to see that there's interest in keeping this article alive - and additional sources of information to expand the article, which I've added to "Further reading" until they can be used. I'm doing a bit of tidying and will add an infobox. If anyone has access to any of the sources and can add content, that would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Work exhibited in a public museum! And the page is referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this is trending to "Keep" and I had already made some changes to the article based upon the comments. Is it possible to "withdraw" this - or close it as "keep"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laredo Petroleum[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable company, see article talk page for more details. Also, page is poorly done and starting over from scratch is best. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Update: Nominator is now neutral, see below[reply]

~~Delete as nominator~~ without prejudice against a decently-written, decently-referenced article that clearly indicates that this company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines if and when the company becomes notable, or immediately if the company is notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Update As a company with a $3.5B+ stock-market value, it is somewhat likely that the company meets Wikipedia's notability requirements even if the article does not clearly demonstrate that it does. Changing to "neutral, without opposition to a soft deletion/userfication as with an expired PROD" should the article still not demonstrate the company's notability before the end of the discussion period. I recommend against closing this as "keep" as that would prevent another AFD any time soon. If it does close as "keep" without significant improvement, I recommend that the closing admin either explicitly say "keep, no prejudice against another AFD soon" or summarize the arguments in this discussion that suggest this should close as a "full keep." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now has RS refs. Is on the NYSE which makes it notable almost by definition. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the NYSE does not "make it notable almost by definition." Being in the Fortune 500 or S&P 500, almost certainly, being in the mid-cap S&P 400 quite likely, but not being in the NYSE. However, I will reread the article before the week is out and come back here and comment on it if my opinion changes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that was an over statement. Added refs from the WSJ, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading WP:LISTED, it appears it was at least a little less of an overstatement than I first thought, "given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable". VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt many if not most needed deleted if no was was willing and/or could find notable refs, but I'm not sure what if anything that has to do with this particular article being notable? Shouldn't it stand or fall on its own notability? FWIW, I agreed above that being on the NYSE was not enough. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In theory yes, but because they have identical formats and identical issues we could in fact have listed all 62 articles on one AfD. However, as they appear to be created by differents Wikipedia accounts, and investigation will yake place to establish if they were created by the same person. hence separate AfDs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting the AFD was wrong, but how the article came to be should have no bearing on its future if it is capable of being a standalone article. How does a 62 article AFD work where some pass and some fail? Seems like the closing admin could be faced with a major mess, not to mention the major confusion on who wants what to happen to which. I understand if no one steps up to the plate to 'fix' an article out of a group created by a single editor, but once someone(s) step(s) up for an article, then everything changes. That's my only point; that the article should no longer be treated as part of a group. FWIW, I had never heard of this company before I saw the AFD (I'm not in that industry). VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@VMS Mosaic: I can't say why Kudpung chose to announce that this was one of dozens of similar articles, but I can see two reasons why having such a statement in an AFD is helpful to the encyclopedia: 1) it invites other editors to look through this editor's contributions and/or ask for the list of the dozens of articles then try to identify articles on that list which are on topics that are notable and beef up/rescue them and/or state their opinion regarding deletion of these articles, and 2) it invites the same editors to endorse or state their own opinion regarding deletion of articles on topics that they do not believe are notable or which they are unsure of the notability of. I have already taken on the task of improving one article on the list about a company that I believe is notable. I may let the prod expire and ask for userfication if I can't get it in good shape before its week is out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly off topic for an AfD, but this is one of over 60 articles created (supposedly) by a group of 32 accounts working in concert under the auspices of an educational project. They have all received appropriate CSD/PROD/AfD messages on their talk pages and if as a group they can't get their heads together to understand why the articles they are producing are inapropriate, then it's not up to regular editors to clean up their mess for them. As an online ambassador, I would be willing to encourage them to understand, but I'm not going to force such articles into notability for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A point of clarity, or perhaps a point of confusion on my part: It's my understanding that notability belongs to the subject, not the article (that is, the subject's notability exists or does not exist even before the article is created, and a notable subject's notability doesn't disappear if the article is deleted for whatever reason, e.g. copyright violation). However, the article must demonstrate that the subject is notable by using reliable sources, etc. or other editors are free to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the topic is not notable. Did I get this right or have I been doing it wrong all of these years? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a good look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and have little doubt this article now meets notability per the guideline. @Kudpung: I never suggested any regular editors had to clean up anyone's mess or that you needed to worry about forcing the article into notability. My only point is that a "regular editor" volunteered to clean up one part of the mess and "forced" this article into notability. If you believe it still does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), please cite the relevant part of that guideline so that I can attempt to address the issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have sufficient singificance for an article. Google News archive would likely be the best way of finding coverage here if it wasn't down. Highbeam gives enough results to indicate that a well-sourced article is possible here. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiphop-N-More[edit]

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

Just another unreliable hip-hop blog. Nothing significant besides a few low list placements, lacks significant coverage in independent third party reliable sources. Fails WP:WEBSITE. STATic message me! 20:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 01:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEBSITE. Koala15 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage of the website to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smith & Wesson Model CS45[edit]

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

A contested Proposed deletion.

Initially "PROD"-ed with the rationale "This appears to be a small production run of a minor variant of the Smith & Wesson Model 457. The Smith & Wesson website has no mention of a "Chiefs Special" Smith & Wesson Model 45*.
Addition to picture caption "This is a separate model with a different frame from the Model 457"
From my WP:BEFORE research, if the "Smith & Wesson Model CS45" is not a variant of the Smith & Wesson Model 457, it would appear to be a non-notable S&W weapon variant perhaps modified or created by independent gunsmiths. Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 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, DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 01:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to show notability. The article consists of pictures of a gun with the photographer's descriptions. Borock (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest thing I can find to a source is an entry in a handgun database. I can't even find any information to show whether or not this is a variant of the Model 457, although I am not an expert in the field so I may not know the right places to look. Unless some reliable sources can be found, I think we have to delete this. Novusuna ^talk 19:54, 28 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.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 12 the consensus was to relist this discussion as the closing rationale was considered to be too close to a supervote for comfort. As the DRV closer I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as established by multiple articles in major English-language regional Phillipine newspaper. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument on the previous AfD. I do agree however, that the previous AfD should have been closed as "no consensus" instead of "Keep" since the arguments for both sides were well-rounded. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I closed as keep in the previous discussion and admitted the error. In any case the article should not be deleted. We have three reliable sources now. Manila Times, SunStar Pampanga and Philippine Daily Inquirer. Two of those sources were present last time. JodyB_talk 19:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only inline WP:RS that is used in the article is the Inquirer, and it is used to cite that only "only 11 of the original founders remain". That an inconsequential citation; in either case, the references in the "Additional References" have to be cited inline to further ascertain the notability of this organization. –H T D 10:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are inline citations from Sunstar, the Manilla Times and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. These references are inline but some may be found in external links too. JodyB_talk 12:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sun.Star Pampanga has a website. If someone can fetch me a link to those, we can see if the coverage isn't trivial. The PDI source isn't used properly. The Manila Times article while arguable not trivial, the foundation isn't the focus of the Times article. –H T D 12:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article is far too promotional to be encyclopaedic. And almost all third party sources are from sunstar newspaper. It would need wider coverage in other Filipino newspapers. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still coverage from a reliable source, but it's true it could use some more sources. My !vote stands however, as the Sun Star news articles are still primarily about the foundation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:59, 24 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, Mkdw ^talk 01:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ORGDEPTH per significant coverage in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and SunStar Pampanga. See the article for sources. Then copy edit to correct promotional tone. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 29 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 Total Drama characters#Introduced in Total Drama Island. Michig's suggestion of listing her on Heather is noted, but she is already listed on Heather (given name)#Fictional characters with the name include which is where fictional characters with the name 'Heather' are listed. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heather (Total Drama)[edit]

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

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate that this fictional character is notable independent of the series. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Total_Drama_characters#Introduced_in_Total_Drama_Island. I can't find anything to show that this character is particularly noteworthy enough to warrant her own article. The character page has pretty much all of the information that should be included, so there's no need to merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, depending on how plausible it is that readers will search for this character in particular. No notability independent of the series. Novusuna ^talk 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reasonable enough expectation for her to be a search term. From what I do remember of the series, she was one of the most long running contestant characters on there next to the goth character (Gwen I think?). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent notability. Should it be considered plausible that people would search for this topic here, surely they wouldn't search on this title - an entry on the Heather disambiguation page pointing to the (overlong) entry in the list of series characters would surely be more appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serdengecti[edit]

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

Unsourced, and apparently no sources to be found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I find no evidence whatsoever that this is anything beyond a proper name. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is basically an unsourced dictionary definition. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hennig[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find significant media coverage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage!?? Google him and that's all the pops up! I got his autograph at San Diego Comic Con last year. I love Eric! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.188.16 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above! He wouldn't have a verified twitter account if know one knew who he was. LOVVVVE ERIC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.188.16 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC) striking comment, user already made one and there's no reason to try and masquerade around here Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With only very minor or uncredited roles, he fails WP:NACTOR. His career is only starting, so it's WP:TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. His roles are all fairly minor- his one big claim to fame was an uncredited role on the first Hunger Games movie so that doesn't really show that his roles were so notable that they'd be kept on that basis alone. Getting an invite as a guest to a big con doesn't give notability in and of itself. It can make it easier to gain notability, but it doesn't really count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm altering my argument slightly to argue for the salting of this article. It looks like this is the third time this article has been created. The previous two times it was speedied, so I think that salting this to prevent further re-creation would probably save some time in the future. Until he receives an absolute breakout role (his uncredited role in HG is far from breakout), this would be better off salted because I predict that it'd probably get re-created within a few months. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I agree with the above comment that he seems to have just started a few years ago, while researching him I was able to find numerous press releases, tv interviews with news stations promoting work and I also came across a charity he did with an organization called "Normal" with charitybuzz.com. It looks like he auctioned off a lunch date with him and the funds raised went to an anti-bullying campaign. If he wasn't notable I don't think someone would of paid $550 to have lunch with him. I believe my findings show the general public does have an interest in him. [30]Entertainment4u2013 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Entertainment4u2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This page meets the requirements stated by wiki WP:NACTOR. As stated in WP:NACTOR.one of the traits that makes an actor or actress notable is: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". This actor has a verified twitter account with 27,000 followers. While looking at his twitter account it appears his most recent tweets all have been retweeted, commented 30-50 times each. A verified twitter account alone doesn't make a person notable but it shows they have a large enough fan base that they have to be verified. Which does make a person notable according to the requirements WP:NACTOR.[31]Runner247 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC) striking a blocked sockpuppet Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The thing about a cult following is that 27,000 followers on Twitter isn't considered a cult following that would keep an actor. Given that it's been proven in the past that people can buy followers on social media sites or just outright create them themselves, we really never count social media numbers towards notability unless the numbers are so astronomically large that they've gotten notice in reliable sources such as a news article. In other words, a person has to have a cult following along the lines of the Bronies, Twihards, Beliebers, or RHPS in order to qualify under this and there must be news sources that report about the fanbase. What isn't said outright but very much implied in the "cult following" requirement is that if someone has a fanbase of that size, the entertainer/show/etc will pretty much have already had a ton of coverage in reliable sources. So no, a Twitter account can't make anyone notable just by numbers alone. Now as far as the amount of money brought in an auction, that doesn't prove notability either. It just shows that he took part in an auction for a good cause, something that already makes people pre-disposed to pay more for a date since they know it goes to a good cause. I'm fairly certain that if we looked at any given charity auction of this nature, we'd find that many good looking men and women got that amount of money fairly easily- and without actually being anyone other than someone that signed up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reliable sources which cover this person, and the Keep arguments fail to address the fact that he has not been covered in reliable sources and has not had many major roles. Also, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation related to some contributors above: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainment4u2013 Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The above user, Runner247, made what I feel was an attempt to canvass me here (they didn't even have the competency to post in the right location). Just thought I'd make the nominator and closing admin aware of that. I was going to open a sockpuppet investigation but Taylor Trescott got there first. Lastly Eric Hennig tweeted about the AfD discussion here which won't help matters in terms of SPA accounts. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I came across this page and I happen to see this article about him written by the Hollywood reporter.. Not sure if that qualifies him or not? ^[1]66.87.72.224 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just removed everything that can be considered self published/edited (one of the sites anyone can edit thier profile on) or unsourecd- not much left in the article, really I think I have had more media coverage. Murry1975 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like he's posted something on his Twitter account as well, so I'm posting this here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like Nick Kristock. It's made notability and source. I have posted on Twitter account. blastertalk! see 13:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How is "it's made notability and source" as per WP:GNG and WP:RS? Also WP:MEAT you shouldnt canvass, especailly on social media, any such behavour can lead to blocks. Murry1975 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This guy has obviously accomplished nothing noteworthy, and has obviously spent a lot of time promoting himself online to stroke his own ego. Allow me to point some things out:

On his IMDB page, six (6) out of his eight (8) finished project are "uncredited", meaning he was not listed in the credits or on IMDB by a producer of the project. Instead, the owner of the page, who is likely Eric Hennig, added the credit himself. There are times when performers are legitimately not credited in movies, usually when they're non-featured extras. But literally seventy-five percent of his IMDB page is stuff he just added. That just screams like he's trying to promote himself.
Of the two (2) completed credits that are not self credited, one of them is a poorly produced YouTube series titled "How to Kill a Pitch", which still has not received the five votes needed on IMDB to be rated. And the other is the non-notable made for TV movie, "Game Time: Tackling the Past", in which he appears to be credited as an extra.
According to IMDB pro, his "Star Meter" ranking is 49,442. This means that this week there have been close to 50,000 actors who have had their page viewed more times than he has. This is FAR from notable. My own Star Meter ranking hit 8,771 once.
The "interview" that people keep talking about online was done by a fan website for the Hunger Games. In the interview he was presented as an extra ("non-speaking game maker"). This non-notable fan website thought it would be fun to interview an extra who was on the set of their favorite movie. It doesn't mean he's notable.
In regards to his Twitter page, people can buy fans. I've noticed this to be a trend amongst young beginning actors. I have a feeling this is the case here due to many of the same fans appearing on other pages of people that I know who have used the service. It could be a coincidence, but I doubt it.
The ip addresses of the people claiming to "love" him and who have his autograph resolve to Missouri, where he lives. The same ip address also posted several comments on this page claiming to be different people. I have a feeling these comments are written by Hennig, himself.

In short, Hennig's IMDB page has ONLY verified that he stared in a poorly produced YouTube series and as an extra in a non-notable made for TV movie. It appears as if Hennig has spent a lot of time trying to promote himself online, and I feel as if this wikipedia page is just one attempt at that. I suggest his page be removed.

And if you're reading this Hennig, and I'm sure you are, devote your time to improving your acting craft if you're serious about making it in the industry. Professionals can see through what you're doing; you're only going to embarrass yourself by keeping this stuff up. I've been in the industry for 35 years. Trust me. We see you kids all day long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelChann44 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted this a little to make it a bit more clear. I didn't change the opinions or the wording in the slightest. It was mostly just to make it easier to read for myopic people like me. And as someone who has seen similar stuff in the literary world, I can second this sentiment that stuff like this doesn't accomplish anything. I've seen authors humiliate themselves by doing stuff like this in general, so if the claims are true, you're not doing yourself any favors. Or the actor, if this is a fan doing this on his behalf. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my thoughts on the Twitter account are correct. According Twitter Audit, a website that calculates how many of a person's Twitter followers are "fake" ("fake" meaning accounts known to be operated by robots, or inactive accounts), Eric Hennig only has about 2,500 real Twitter followers, meaning 90% of his 20,000+ followers are fake. You don't get 18,000+ fake accounts following you on accident... Here's a link to the screen shot I took of Hennig's Twitter Audit.

This should be closed now. We've confirmed that he's appeared as a non-speaking extra in a few things (most of which he wasn't notable enough to even be credited for), and has been in a YouTube video. His claim to fame is "Hunger Games" in which he plays one of around twenty non-speaking people who sit around a table and pretend to control the game for a few shots. And now we know he only has around 2,500 "real" Twitter followers (I have more and I'm far from notable).

Delete There is obviously little about Hennig that is actually of note. Even IMDb doesn't attribute more than one or two credits to him. This actor may be notable in the future, but stuff like this suggests that the Wikipedia page is mostly for showing off. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is spam, obviously the actor is not that famous, and as the Audit show most of his followers are bogus. Rising actor with no significance roles. Delete and salt, to prevent recreation by Hennig. Beerest 2 talk 03:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/19969/hollywoodchicagocom-hookup-40-pairs-passes-pitch-perfect-anna-kendrick

[1] ^ pending

[2] ^ penidng

[3] ^ pending

[4] ttp://acim.org

[5] Course in Miracles Society [CIMS] a non-profit organization

[6] Jesus’ Course in Miracles ISBN 978-0976420002

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-097642000-7-1 ACIM OE

[8] ttp://www.miraclestudies.net/HLV2.html

[9] ttp://www.miraclestudies.net/urtext.html/ Miracle Studies article

[10] FINAL ORDER

[11] Trial Background

[12] ttp://acim.org/ FIP

[13] A Course in Miracles - Original Edition On Line

[14] ttp://acimsearch.org/ Sparkly

[15] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780981698458/ URTEXT

[16] ttp://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/19969/hollywoodchicagocom-hookup-40-pairs-passes-pitch-perfect-anna-kendrick

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]