Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 February 19 February >

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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liezl van Zyl[edit]

Liezl van Zyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IP editor 38.97.92.130 has stated this article is a hoax. "This person has been proven to be a false identity created by wiki user solarhyper." Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether a hoax or not (and that is a definite possibility), article should be deleted because subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. mikeman67 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chile today hot tamale[edit]

Chile today hot tamale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable phrase. Pichpich (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I can find lots of mention of spice companies called "chile today" or "chili today, hot tamale", but I can only find a few mentions of the cliché. They note that it is an old joke, but offer little analysis or commentary. See: Berkowitz (2010). Mass Appeal. p. 118. such old lines as reporting that the weather forecast from Mexico City was 'chile today and hot tamale'; Fromkin (1984). Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. p. 113. The Mexican weather forecast: Chili today and hot tamale. The inexactness is obvious; although chili and chilly are phonemically identical.... Cnilep (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because article is likely a WP:Permastub and, after all, WP is WP:NAD. mikeman67 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the 13th[edit]

Remember the 13th (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Swenzy" itself turned out not to be a real company, just some people creating hoax sites. Several Wikipedia articles were created or edited to publicize this. This is the last article involved with these hoaxes. --John Nagle (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd delete it myself, but I was slightly involved with the other AfD, so trying to show a little distance here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically the gist of the deletion of the first article centered around the fact that the website got a very light amount of coverage over an extremely short period of time, which didn't show that it was really in-depth. I don't see where the new version of the article really fixes any of those issues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean we deleted this once already? I didn't know that. OK, it's spam. John Nagle (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This speedy was declined, but the problem is that the article doesn't actually list any new sources. It's all the same sources as the previous version, only with the text re-worded to make the sources seem as if the coverage was bigger and better than it was. An example is that the Museum of Hoaxes "article" is really just a brief mention... and the claims of it being "one of the biggest hoaxes of 2013" isn't substantiated by the link. It's actually fairly close to a previous version of the original version before I'd cleaned it up and edited it, which further confirms my suspicions that this is a sockpuppet of the original editor(s) of the first rendition of this. Really, the coverage here is still relatively minor in the grand scheme of thing. Most of the coverage is the internet ambivalently shrugging their shoulders and turning around to view more videos of kittens. None of the issues from the previous AfD have been addressed. If anyone's curious, I'll post a copy of the original version of the article to my userspace so you can compare the two. This not only needs to be deleted with fire, but I'd recommend salting both this page and the original page to avoid further re-creation. This is pretty much someone trying to use Wikipedia as free advertising. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction, the only new source appears to be a Daily Dot article that was reposted on Salon. Still, not exactly enough to really show a depth of coverage. The Daily Dot somewhat falls into that line between usable and non-usable sources. I've used it, but usually after I've already asserted notability via other RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Salon article, too, is new and not-insubstantial - it was published after the AfD. WilyD
  • Delete I wrote this article, the Swenzy one and I made all of the edits. Since the "company" is not a real company as I thought when I made those edits, This needs to be deleted according to Wikipedia rules and laws. There shouldn't even be discussion for deletion send this to the trash, I feel ashamed and stupid of writing a bad article. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an FYI, you could have logged in with your account (the one you used to create this article) and tagged it with a G7 speedy deletion tag as the creator and only substantial contributor to the article. But aside from that, I see no speedy deletion criterion for this article that applies (aside from a possible G4 which was already declined). -- Atama頭 17:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see evidence that the IP is necessarily the page creator because of that. Either way...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup 2013 (football), there also doesn't seem to be prejudice against merging appropriately slakr\ talk / 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Cup 2011 (football)[edit]

The Atlantic Cup 2011 (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG for being the individual season article of a non-notable friendly competition. Precedent at previous The Atlantic Cup 2013 (football) AfD. JMHamo (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

The Atlantic Cup 2012 (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Atlantic Cup 2014 (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per precedent set in AfD linked to by nominator. – PeeJay 21:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - the parent tournament may be notable, these individual seasons are not. GiantSnowman 13:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per nom, the 2011 and 2012 articles contain nothing that is not routine reporting of matches, mainly drawn from local reporting and the participating club websites themselves. 2014 has more coverage, but this still consists of a number of very brief articles. There is nothing in any of the sources that goes much beyond simply stating that the tournament took place, certain clubs to part and the scores of the matches involved. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to The Atlantic Cup (football). I don't see why more AFDs are going on here. This seems punitive and unnecessary, coming down on the editor(s) who created the main article and these year-specific ones. There was adequate consensus established in the prior AFD about the 2013 one, that an editor could have gone ahead and had discussion at the main article's talk page, leaving record of the consensus that separate year-articles should not be re-created if much more further evidence is found about their separate notabilities, and then proceeded with merging and redirecting. The redirects would hold the past history of edits. If the 2011, 2012 and 2014 ones are deleted, I would be inclined to immediately recreate them as redirects, and also to request restoration of the edit histories, undoing the effect of a deletion decision. Note, the main article was also AFD'd, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup (football), where the result was Keep, providing plenty of negativity for the original creator(s). Again, these further AFDs seems unnecessary and unpleasant, and, given that it is started as an AFD, the best thing to do is to decide to merge and redirect. --doncram 14:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what on earth are you talking about? Aside from your inherent presumptions of bad faith which you might like to reconsider - at no point has anyone made any form of attack against any editor. The reason that there are separate discussions is for the reason that just because one season in a given competition does not meet GNG does not mean others don't. Furthermore, no editor should take it upon themselves to just redirect a whole load of articles without discussion. Deletion does not mean that the article should be immediately created as a redirect, if there is no consensus to do so, so not sure why you have made the very pointy statement that if they are deleted you will recreate as redirects. The purpose of this discussion is not just whether something should be kept, but whether the term "The Atlantic Cup 2011 (football)" is a plausible search term. Current opinion in this discussion and the previous season's AfD would indicate that it is not and so as things stand, there is no consensus around notability nor that the title is a plausible search term. I would suggest that you just wait and see what consensus is rather than announcing what you will do if the discussion does not go as you desire it. Fenix down (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is worth pointing out that there is currently an SPI taking place concerning the above user and the creator of the article under discussion here, which may, of course be groundless (it's not groundless, seems scblaster is a sock of Rpo.castro. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in AfDs. Fenix down (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever about any SPI. I sort of recall an ANI about the user, and i had the impression they were treated badly. All of that is irrelevant here.
  • About OTHERSTUFF: "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These comparisons may or may not be valid, but the invalid ones are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales." I think in the past that the quality in Wikipedia was much more varied, but now it is more even. And OTHERSTUFF argument, here, especially, seems quite valid. There seems to be a quite well-established practice and even treatment of football tournaments. --doncram 18:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Knight[edit]

John T. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a banned user after the ban. Significant edits by other editors and existing talk page discussion mean that speedy-deletion should not be used. Taking to AFD rather than PROD to get a discussion-based outcome. On its merits: The person seems notable only for 1 event, an event which was an accident of history and which does not have its own article. See talk page for more discussion. Also, many things are unreferenced. My recommendation: If this person does meet WP:Notability then it's best to WP:STARTOVER. If he does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines then of course there should not be an article about him. Note: As the creator is banned, I did not leave any note on the creating-account's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Information Diff showing changes since initial edits by page creator. These edits are largely removing material and wiki-formatting/cleanup, not addition of new material. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a case of WP:1E, at best. Someone who is familiar with law might be able to determine if Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998 is notable enough for an article, in which case this could be a nice starting point. Regardless, this article is spam, and should be deleted. Grayfell (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads more like a CV than an encyclopædia article. I'm sure Knight is a nice fellow and good at his job, but that doesn't mean he's notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator as wrong film project. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 21:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost (2014 film)[edit]

Paradise Lost (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film has been dropped [1]. Gloss • talk 18:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • question are those the same film? My impression is that they aren't. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing like looking like a huge idiot to start the day. You're both right. My apologies for the confusion! Gloss • talk 19:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, but many editors suggest merging or moving the material.  Sandstein  08:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements of IFRS[edit]

Requirements of IFRS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Existing discussion can be found on the talk page; my rationale in a nutshell is that the article relies on primary sources (and with opaque referencing), is overly detailed beyond merited coverage in a generalist encyclopedia, and is presented as a sort of how-to. In conclusion, it's not encyclopedic content. I would not object to a merge/redirect back to the parent article International Financial Reporting Standards if editors see merit in this. BDD (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is the "Summary of standards" that is linked on navigation {{International Financial Reporting Standards}}. It has been tagged with messages like "too technically detailed", but in the context of the article series it is proper, it is the overview of main features of the IFRS standards, while more technical details are included in separate articles about individual IFRS standards. It could About it referring to the primary sources of the IFRS standards, that is best. The standards themselves are summary works reflecting tons of discussion in requests for comments and debate among academics and politicians and experts, much as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards reflect industry comments and political pressure, too. It would be easy to add secondary/tertiary references to accounting textbooks that teach the standards. "How to guides" by KPMG and others are quite definitive, reliable sources, too, as they have to be: they provide authoritative guidance for KPMG auditors and KPMG is on the line financially if anything is wrong. If anyone wishes to dispute the reliability of these sources, nonetheless, they should post to the sources noticeboard and please notify me to come join discussion. --doncram 15:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I few points of false facts youryou stated: IFRS are international rules and is not a government body. The standards were not created with any sort of political discussion or influence, but a set of business standards that allows consistent comparison between financial statements. Those who adhere to International Financial Reporting Standards do so because it is advantageous when comparing these accounting statements across polities, which do have their GAAP. Ultimately, it is up to the organization or business to decide what set or group of accounting rules they would like to follow.174.3.125.23 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say IFRS was a govt body, i compared its set of standards to U.S. EPA (a govt agency)'s set of standards promulgated. And, accounting standards are very much outcomes of political processes. There are organized comment periods about drafts and so on. And, to some extent a business can choose what set of standards they follow...but often not. Businesses listed on public exchanges (i.e. which sell shares to the public) in Canada must provide IFRS-consistent financial statements. Businesses listed on the U.S. New York Stock Exchange used to have to provide U.S. GAAP statements (even if the business was headquartered in Germany and it was required to provide IFRS or whatever there); now i think NYSE allows either U.S. GAAP or IFRS. --doncram 23:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the WP:NOTHOW violation is being addressed.174.3.125.23 (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discussion of deletion already occurred at Talk page, where some criticisms were already addressed. Quoting:
Collapsed quotes from talk page; these aren't actually comments made as part of this AfD, but do explain the deprodding rationale and give input --slakr\ talk / 15:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose [to the suggestion of deletion, there] A quick search found secondary sources for IFRS reporting requirements like [2], [3], [4], and [5]. A GBooks search for "requirements of IFRS" netted 7,330 results and GScholar 464 results. This seems a highly notable field with ample sources on which to build an article. I don't think this is a howto, in the sense that this is very far from a detailed manual for how to report financial information. But in any case, removal of any content deemed howto or synth can be accomplished with ordinary editing; deletion should be an action of last resort. For these reasons, I am deprodding. --Mark viking (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IFRS are a body of requirements. The sources you cited and those on GBooks (Google Books) and GScholar (Google Scholar) are simply secondary sources of the actual IFRS accounting rules. I can't see how providing sources could take this article's subject into a nonoriginal article.174.3.125.23 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary and tertiary sources like the ones quoted above are precisely what is needed to avoid original research. If I was to read the entire set of of primary IFRS documents (heaven help me) and decide what the main points are to put in the article, that would be an evaluative judgment in the realm of OR and likely SYNTH. But if experts in the field write books or papers describing "these are the main points, and this why they are important", then a simple straight summary of those source is all that is needed, no OR required. The section WP:PSTS within the WP:OR page describes the policies. --Mark viking (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the sources and there is no consistent reference to any set or specific group of "requirements". In reality, all International Financial Reporting Standards are requirements and rules. Ultimately, those sources are sources of private companies, and handbooks to use IFRS. IFRS rules must be followed in order for accounting reporting to be considered to be under International Financial Reporting Standards. Otherwise, they are ad hoc rules or sometimes GAAP rules, if they are following a national body's rules.174.3.125.23 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there are sources, and there could be improvement such as finding summary reviews of IFRS that themselves state the main points, to avoid synthesis/OR, but that is doable. This AFD would eliminate a sensible encyclopedic topic, an overview of IFRS standards. Consider, wouldn't a "List of IFRS standards" be a valid topic, which provided summary of various standards. That is what this is. --doncram 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing you can summarize. All accounting rules have to be followed to International Financial Reporting Standards. Accountancy is quite different from other fields in that representation of financial figures with consistency is an imperative.174.3.125.23 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article; oppose the deletion. The article is a fair endeavour to summarise the key points of IFRS. It already has clear referencing to the primary source, being the standards themselves. The format of these references can be edited to Wikipedia-standard.

Secondary sources exist which summarise the IFRS standards, highlighting the key principles of IFRS. IFRS is generally considered to be principles-based and the standards lend themselves to summary. The article currently lacks references to those secondary sources.

The article is not overly detailed. The article is not presented as a “how-to”. The subject matter of the article merits coverage in a generalist encyclopaedia. Swinnow16 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that the keepers believe that with secondary sources the article should be kept because information from these secondary sources can be collated into an articled that would be accepetable under WP:NOT. This is not true because when refering to "principles" versus "rules" in accountancy (which I believe you are refering to Accounting ethics#Principles and rules), this ultimately comes down to the discrection of the accountant, on how they interpret the rules, not whether a rule can be ignored or omitted.
The fact that the secondary sources that have been provided are not neutral, from private comapanies, and from third party sources casts doubt in the ability to reliably source the article.
Lastly, the concern that these reasons have not been dismissed results in the article being a howtoguide, which violates WP:NOT.174.3.125.23 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to International Financial Reporting Standards. Wikipedia's articles on the topic of accounting are generally quite poor, and this is no exception, being full of accounting jargon and I suspect completely impenetrable to someone who is not an expert on the topic. I don't think that the main IFRS article is so unwieldly that a discussion of what's actually required would be out of place there, and it may be possible to salvage some of this content for that purpose. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with the comment about poorness, but an editing improvement campaign would best be done by developing the IFRS main article and moving summary points to the summary of standards article. The way to improve the series is not to delete the natural summary of standards article. --doncram 23:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take that you believe Requirements of IFRS is a summary standards article. How, then, logically, would you address the howto nature of Requirements of IFRS?174.3.125.23 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break up by merging mostly into the main articles for each section, e.g. merge Revenue section to revenue recognition; then redirect to the main IFRS page, keeping the page history (good practice under GFDL). The IFRS page could also have a list of these dispersed sections as "key requirements of IFRS". The aspect of the overall topic that might interest readers most is where the requirements of IFRS differ from their historical national standard accounting practice, and this could be cited from accounting journals for any particular country, but it would not be practicable to build a global view of the differences in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominators arguments speak to rewriting, not deletion. It is not a 'how to' but a description. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Klysman Henrique[edit]

Klysman Henrique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Latamie[edit]

Marc Latamie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist of dubious notability, with little coverage in reliable sources. Most mentions I can find are local coverage in the New York City area, or references to a WP:ONEEVENT lawsuit. Author removed prod multiple times without addressing the concerns, suggesting a possible COI. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The "references" added were actually just C.V.'s, which do not qualify as references per WP:BLPSPS, and a link to a page about an exhibition, which does not have any citable information. I edited the article, and moved them to the more appropriate "External links" section. At this point, it is still an unreferenced BLP. —Josh3580talk/hist 17:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear all, I added sources and references as you could see. I can do more if necessarely. Is it then possible to remove the delation post? --Lucilulle (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- depth of shows at major museums and galleries, including a commissioned work by MoMA in their tempo exhibit, passes the GNG for artists. Most of the exhibition catalogs include far more than passing reference. (The link to the MoMA show and others moves it from unreferenced BLP even if notability concerns are not addressed). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is written like promotional material. Only article online I could find from neutral source is that he allegedly ripped off another art dealer, but the article makes no mention of this. Two listed online sources for the article have no coverage of Latamie either (first one doesn't even has name listed, other one only has name listed under a very large list of contributors). Don't think it comes close to meeting requirements of WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Of the four criteria, Latamie only comes close to #4: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Article claims (without citation) that he has had some temporary works, but that simply isn't sufficient per WP guidelines. mikeman67 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only weak sources. If you could add the "allegation" (if properly reported by a reliable and balanced secondary source) this could increase notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Collette[edit]

Brian Collette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fighter who fails both WP:KICK and WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has fought three times for and is currently signed to Glory, the world's top promotion. Is currently ranked as 7th in the world in the Glory rankings. Shaolin Punk (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Number of fights is not notability criteria in kickboxing. I proposed that but looks like it won't work. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says he is ranked Top 7th in the World - in Glory ranking. If a publication backed that up he would meet notability requirements.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Glory's official site is "independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source" than I would be glad to vote for keep. But I am not sure that it is "independent". Master Sun Tzu (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glory's rankings are strictly for their own fighters so they aren't a true world ranking (and certainly aren't independent). I'd even question how good they are for their own fighters--Schilt is ranked third even though he's apparently retired and hasn't fought since the end of 2012.Mdtemp (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:KICK and not otherwise notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:KICK. His two recent losses to Dustin Jacoby, whose article was just deleted as non-notable, don't help his case. Papaursa (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Video Dub[edit]

Free Video Dub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_YouTube_to_MP3_Converter CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all basically advertisments:[reply]

Free Audio Converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Free Video Call Recorder for Skype (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Free YouTube Download (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think I messed up, I probably should have just merged and redirect all of these to DVDVideoSoft, but I guess it is not bad to give them all exposure. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for all per WP:G11 Leondz (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Seems a bit promotional. That giant template that threatens to create every product this company makes is a bit scary, and I think that pushes me away from a merge and toward deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I say merge is the discussion linked said merge. I'm not seeing the same template you are, or am not interpreting it the same way can you link the template? CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom of the page. The huge template with about 50 redlinks. Template:Free Studio. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't see that eariler. It would be a disaster if those all got created. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20#Template:Free_Studio CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Icho Larenas[edit]

Icho Larenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:NBOX. Also fails WP:GNG since the only links are to his fight records.Mdtemp (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure what boxing has to do with this but clearly non-notable MMA fighter. Only one top tier fight.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meets no notability standards and only links are to his MMA and boxing records.204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. No reason to think this guy is notable nor is there any sign that this fighter is notable. IMO, not all athletes are notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fighter is two top tier fights shy of meeting WP:NMMA. Mkdwtalk 21:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Closed upon withdrawal by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Poison Whiskey 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuhiko Nagata[edit]

Katsuhiko Nagata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter with no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Withdraw nomination. I couldn't see the forest for the trees (too focused on MMA, missed Olympics).Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is an olympic medalist - that makes him notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Baker (boxer)[edit]

Bob Baker (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boxer who fails WP:NBOX and lacks the sources to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant pro career which included his being a world title contender. Having fought in a world title eliminator he will almost certainly pass WP:NBOX via ranking. This suggests he was one of the top heavyweights of the 1950s, as does this, and non-notable boxers don't tend to appear on Topps chewing gum cards. Further coverage here, here, here, here, and here. If the subject does fail WP:NBOX, which I doubt, then that just shows the limitations of that guideline. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of Michig's sources are just fight results, but he also found one that shows Baker was certainly ranked in the top 10. Article needs better sources, but he does meet WP:NBOX. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zentrale Unterstützungsgruppe Zoll[edit]

Zentrale Unterstützungsgruppe Zoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unsourced article that has been around for several years, without ever having had a single source of any kind. It was tagged as unsourced (with the tag added by someone else, not me) a full year ago, but the only thing that has happened since then is that even more unsourced material has been added, so I feel it's time to nominate the article for deletion. Thomas.W talk to me 15:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Units like this are usually held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On its face it certainly appears to be notable. It badly needs references, but AFD is not a forum for improving an article; it's for determining when an article should be deleted. The German equivalent article appears to have references (although not footnotes). Perhaps bringing this to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany would result in the referencing issue being addressed. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I tagged the article for WikiProject Germany; and posted a note there, without mentioning this AFD, proposing that interested members add some references. I don't think that runs afoul of WP:CANVASS. TJRC (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Harris (martial artist)[edit]

Roy Harris (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:MANOTE and lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Halls of fame do not show notability nor is notability inherited from instructors or students.Mdtemp (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable for being one of the first American BJJ black belts, had at least one article in Black Belt Magazine, inducted into the Masters Hall of Fame, etc. Clearly meets the GNG. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Appearing in one article is not enough to show he meets WP:GNG. Passing mentions, putting out a DVD, and being in a hall of fame--none show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Livingstone (née Moffat)[edit]

Mary Livingstone (née Moffat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BIO, being married to a notable person does not automatically confer notability on the subject. Rumours of alcoholism and adultery hardly do it either. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She is the subject of at least two recent books:
The latter book's author wrote a column about it for The Daily Telegraph [6], which is already cited in our Wikipedia article; here's a review in The Scotsman[7]. The subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the subject of two major books clearly is enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This page needs major improvements in its contents. I have grave reservations about the "it was rumored" section. I would suspect use of the "Wives of Fame" book would give us much more helpful information. However being a poorly written article is no reason to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per book sources mentioned. Unsourced rumours must be removed, however. -- 101.119.27.149 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The wife of a missionary will almost inevitably also be a missionary, not merely a wife. She is probably not as notable as her very notable husband, but she is certainly not NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State theory (time)[edit]

State theory (time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be original research. It's a mere stub written by a single IP author that gives no references and searching on "State theory" doesn't elucidate anything as to its origin either. Modocc (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Seems to be nonsense; I couldn't find anything about it in searching. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is simply amazing that this article has been around almost 10 years. There exist various speculative physical theories and approximations which incorporate the notion of discrete time (e.g, quantum spacetime, causal sets, Feynman checkerboard, lattice gauge theory), but I know of none called "State theory" and was unable to find any such in my Google searches. Without reliable sources to verify, this article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Topic overlaps with other articles (add Planck time to the list), and when originally written the second paragraph makes it seem even more like a nonsense article. Agree with Mark viking's reasoning. Chris857 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is Forever (Bliss Team song)[edit]

Love Is Forever (Bliss Team song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of this entirely unsourced song article is not notable by any means. I wasn't able to find any independent refs discussing the song, nor did the track even chart in Italy. Even if the song did chart in one country, that's still no excuse for the article to exist if there's no independent coverage. 和DITOREtails 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 08:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Applied[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Applied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG or CORP DEPTH. Prev discussion closed as no consensus. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Committee (designer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Committee (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One good source but do not otherwise appear to be notable. Prev discussion closed as no consensus despite two delete votes and no keeps. Further discussion required. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the misguided close aside, this one is difficult because searching for "Committee" brings up millions of results, none of which relate to the subject. That said, I tried more specific search parameters and couldn't find anything there either. Support deletion unless notability can be substantiated by company-specific coverage in reliable sources. Stalwart111 00:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - also couldn't find any notable coverage of subject, so it doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. mikeman67 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ramos (fighter)[edit]

Luis Ramos (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA fighter - managed two top tier fights but both losses and sometime back. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that was for the Shooto world title and not the South American title? I can't find any references to support that it was the world title and Shooto Brazil isn't top tier. According to Sherdog it wasn't even the main event and that seems strange for a world title.Mdtemp (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see here and here. The main event of Shooto Brazil 17 was also a title bout. Siyar Bahadurzada defended his then Shooto 183-pound world title. Poison Whiskey 21:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the world champion of a top tier organization certainly meets WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Poison Whiskey`s findings. Championship title at a top tier promotion. Mkdwtalk 21:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Murgel[edit]

Ricardo Murgel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable martial artist - advertisement. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mashamaite[edit]

Daniel Mashamaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ...this is why bundled AFDs don't save anyone any time. Delete BTEC-E; No consensus on Itbit or Williams; Keep the rest. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LocalBitcoins[edit]

LocalBitcoins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm going to save AfD a load of time by nominating a large group of mostly non-notable exchanges and start-up companies focused around cryptocurrencies, namely Bitcoin. Almost all of these articles in this catergory are stubs that fail WP:GNG, WP:PROMO, and WP:BLP in the case of the persons, with the exception of BitInstant which I believe does meet WP:GNG and doesn't violate PROMO, although anybody is free to make a case as to why not.

Here are the companion articles:

Bitstamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BTC China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BTC-E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ItBit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vitalik Buterin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mark T. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Citation Needed | Talk 12:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete itBit. Not notable based on coverage at this point, in my opinion, though I'm sure some would disagree with my reasoning. A ton of reliable sources had articles about the company on or near November 11, 2013, based on a press release that day about the startup company raising $3.5 million, but that just doesn't weigh heavily for me as far as notability. Virtually all the articles simply repeated things said in the press release. A couple emphasized different aspects, like focusing on the networking equipment or software they chose, listed in the press release, rather than their fundraising. There was a lesser amount of press the next month when Gaurav Burman, a wealthy businessman who may be well known in India, also invested in the company, but that seemed like a fairly unimportant story, also covered with what seemed like a single source provided by the company. And it's mentioned in passing in a few articles, like this, which explains that it's a bitcoin exchange, and explains what a bitcoin exchange does. I am probably overlooking some coverage in Tamil, Malay, or Chinese, and it could be substantial, in-depth coverage that would cause me to change my mind. I'll check back for additional sources. Agyle (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vitalik Buterin [Reconsidering due to newly added FastCompany & Reuters [oops – just press release on reuters.com] cites; will post at bottom of page when I re-decide]. Not notable based on coverage, yet (impressive for age 19!). The Wired article has a very minimal amount of information about him, maybe 3 paragraphs, and is primarily about the Ethereum project he's working on. Others articles mention him more in passing, or get a quote from him, but it's not the significant coverage from multiple reliable sources needed for a biography. Agyle (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps they could be merged into one article called Bitcoin exchanges? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an existing article called Digital currency exchangers. A previous list of such exchanges was voted for deletion. Lists of cryptocurrencies, exchanges, and wallet addresses in the past have been prone to arguably trivial additions. Using Wikipedia's notability standards for each company/service provides guidance on which are worth covering in related lists or articles. ––Agyle (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand it correctly, Digital currency exchanger is about all digital currencies - not just cryptocurrencies. Maybe a subsection on cryptocurrencies as part of that article would be useful. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bitstamp has significant coverage in the news, from the BBC, Reuters, The Verge, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and many others. I can't see any valid reason to delete it. Danrok (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bitstamp Seems to be in the news daily now, all over. My google alert is full of mentions, including several today mentioning that they are picking up payment processing. Keep. jtjathomps —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Both Bitstamp and BTC China state they are the world's largest exchange. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bitstamp is the worlds biggest exchange by volume in USD, BTC China worlds biggest exchange by volume in CNY (Currently Huoby). Anyway I've copied all the articles marked for deletion now so if you want to remove it from this fascist propaganda site then that's great. Please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:DC2E:2:61E7:E1AD:A437:98EE (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CoinDesk and BTC China have said many exchanges fake their volume data. There is no regulatory agency overseeing/verifying any of the market data being published by third party exchange tracking websites, and all of it should be taken with a grain of salt. ––Agyle (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:470:DC2E:2:61E7:E1AD:A437:98EE: why not help improve the articles so they don't get deleted. You may also like / find amusing the Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians. @Agyle: If the articles are kept it would be improvement to include a note about the self reporting nature of an exchange's size/ Jonpatterns (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikipedia articles on these topics cite random, anonymously-run "index" websites to make claims. Trying to improve articles by removing such misleading info is a time-consuming, losing battle. Adding caveats to point out the info is unreliable based on that one article wouldn't be appropriate, as CoinDesk is a weak source, and its allegations mention few specific exchanges. While everyone who understands the subject realizes all the figures are unreliable, due to intentional manipulation or as a matter of normal account management, they seem to be an intrinsic part of Wikipedia's coverage on cryptocurrencies. This is a all irrelevant to the AfD discussion though, which is a question about coverage. Volume, balance sheets, or market cap don't factor into Wikipedia's "notability" test. ––Agyle (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BTC-e. Couldn't establish notability (WP:GNG or WP:CORP), despite being an important company. I spot-checked several established English-language news sites with reputations for fact-checking for coverage of "BTC-e" . All I found was incidental coverage, quoting a price from them, mentioning that BitStamp and BTC-e are the highest volume exchanges when covering some other subject, on rare occasion printing a sentence from a spokesperson, or something similar. The number of mentions, and the repetition that it's one of the largest exchanges, absolutely establishes that it's an important company, but that's different than being a notable company as Wikipedia defines it. It's rare to have such a wide difference between the two, but the requirement for significant coverage from these types of sources is so that there is verifiable information about a subject on which to base an article.
I did not include CoinDesk or Bitcoin Magazine here; I consider them very weak reliable sources, usable for some uncontroversial information, but lacking a real reputation for fact-checking. For example, Bitcoin Magazine's "About" page says they have two reporters and an editor, none with journalism experience, while I'm guessing the newspapers below all have full-time professional fact-checkers.
I did not check sources in other languages. Bulgarian media would seem likely to have more coverage, as that's where the company is based.
Source for "BTC-e" Articles largely
about subject		 Articles with more
than a paragraph
on subject		 Articles with
minor/trivial
mention(s)
Wall Street Journal 0 0 16
Financial Times 0 0 7
Bloomberg 0 0 6
International Business Times 0 0 6
Washington Post 0 0 4
Forbes 0 0 4
Houston Chronicle 0 0 4
The Guardian 0 0 3
Chicago Tribune 0 0 2
San Francisco Chronicle 0 0 2
(conference proceedings) 0 0 2
New York Times 0 0 1
LA Times 0 0 1
CNN 0 0 1
Barrons 0 0 0
New York Daily News 0 0 0
Fortune 0 0 0
Entrepreneur 0 0 0
USA Today 0 0 0
The Sun 0 0 0
CBC News 0 0 0
(scholarly journals) 0 0 0
(independent books) 0 0 0
––Agyle (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For each of them:
    • LocalBitcoins: Keep, per [8] and [9]. The first article is entirely about LocalBitcoins, while it is mentioned several times throughout the second. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bitstamp: Easy keep, per [10], [11], and many more.
    • BTC China: Keep, per [12] and [13].
    • BTC-E: Weak delete. I found a lot of mentions but most of them just mentioned it as one of the leading Bitcoin exchanges, without in-depth coverage. The best I found was [14].
    • ItBit: Weak keep. It's actually not very well-known in the Bitcoin community, but it seems to have plenty of coverage: [15] and [16].
    • Vitalik Buterin: Delete. No significant coverage found.
    • Mark T. Williams: Delete. No significant coverage, no published papers either (tried to compute an h-index for him, but couldn't find any).
  • King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can't be keeped (in line with WP:N, etc) with a generalised article, such as Digital currency exchanger. I'll leave it up to everyone else as to what should and shouldn't be kept/deleted, I don't have a firm opinion on this issue. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mark T. Williams. Did not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Found no independent sources with any significant information about him. (The article cites some publications from Boston University, which is his employer, and while they may be reliable should not be considered "independent" for purposes of notability). I found nothing about him in academic literature, though I admittedly searched very little, as I found nothing but false positives on scholar.google.com (his name is very common). He has had a book and many articles published, but that's true of many authors, and doesn't establish notability. He won a "Beckwith Prize for Teaching Excellence and Service to the Undergraduate Program", awarded annually to a BU faculty member by BU, and while impressive, to me it falls short of "a well-known and significant award or honor" suggested by WP:BIO (I'd take that to mean an award open to a wider pool of people, and an award with which people within the profession (in this case teaching) would generally be familiar). ––Agyle (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vitalik Buterin and Bitstamp. Vitalik is the founder and inventor of Ethereum; Chris Odom's comments on Ethereum reflect the idea of many in the community: "(Ethereum is...) the most innovative blockchain-based cryptocurrency since Bitcoin itself, and the only one that I would bother acquiring units of." Perhaps the problem is that the Ethereum page should have been created first. Bitstamp is an obvious keep. Sanpitch (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I think the original poster should have nominated some or each of these for deletion seperately. As a member of the Bitcoin community and a Wikipedia editor here are my views, in brief:
    • LocalBitcoins: Delete - popular site, but not enough independent news coverage to warrant notability.
    • Bitstamp: week keep - Now the largest BTC exchange, notable and useful article.
    • BTC China: note sure / weak delete - hard to see this growing beyound a stub right now. A relatively new exchange, not covered much by (western) media.
    • BTC-E: not sure - this exchange has been in the news a lot and has a lot of speculation surroinding it's management.
    • ItBit: Weak delete
    • Vitalik Buterin: weak keep and improve - he's one of the most prominent and influential members of the bitcoin community. I'm sure more references can be found.
    • Mark T. Williams: keep and clean up / relist AfD if necessary - seems to meet the conditions of WP:Prof (just barely). Article needs to be de-listified and cleaned up.
    • : Danski14(talk) 21:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Danski14, regarding Williams, did you find he barely met one of the 9 criteria in WP:Prof's WP:NACADEMICS, and if so which one? I know you're trying to be concise, but I'd like to consider your rationale.
Regarding Buterin, his prominence doesn't address the need for WP:RS, and if your decision rests on certainty they were overlooked, I'd challenge you to find them. (Significant coverage from published third-party RS). Agyle (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except perhaps BTC China. CoinDesk meets the guidelines for a reliable source, and has covered all of these extensively. Xrt6L (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My votes:
    • LocalBitcoins: Keep Well-known international site for buying bitcoins locally. Don't have RSes handy but I've definitely heard them specifically mentioned in a few non BTC-focused media outlets.
    • Bitstamp: Strong keep Probably the current largest BTC exchange.
    • BTC China: No opinion Probably a keep if it's one of the first or largest Chinese BTC exchanges.
    • BTC-E: Weak Keep This is a fairly well known exchange, particularly because it exchanges many types of cryptocurrency. Don't have RSes for that, though, so it may be that it's not quite ready.
    • ItBit: No opinion
    • Vitalik Buterin: Keep Profiled in multiple news outlets, seems clearly notable.
    • Mark T. Williams: Weak Keep / Relist separately I'm not crazy about this "group discussion" format as it is, and I especially think it's not right to lump two possibly notable BLPs in with a bunch of deletion discussions for BTC exchanges. He seems like if he's not notable he's on the razor's edge to me - guest columnist in several notable media outlets, has some sort of special appointment at a notable institution. Those details should probably be hashed out separately if the decision isn't keep. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BTC-E per King of Hearts and Agyle. No significant coverage in reliable source. Empirical opinions irrelevant. --hydrox (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's not quite a clear enough consensus that this person was noted only for one event, i.e., the manner of their death.  Sandstein  08:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Coots[edit]

Jamie Coots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Classic case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS of a snake handler who died, surprise, surprise, from a snake bite. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sorry, but this IMO is a speedy.....--Stemoc (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone would slither by here soon (cue endless snake-related puns...) Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna write "ssssspeedy" but thought it would be a bit too much.. :P ..--Stemoc (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, wait! - this needs to be included in the oft-nominated but rarely unusual List of unusual deaths! It would fit perfectly. My only question is whether his television appearances and then the coverage relating to his death might get him past WP:BLP1E? He wasn't really notable in life, nothing to suggest his deaths changes that really. So I support deletion unless something more substantive is identified. Stalwart111 13:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a snake handler being killed by a snake is that unusual! --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fangs for that. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you an expert in religious snake-handling deaths?  Do you agree or disagree with the claim in the Guardian that there have been 10 such deaths in the last century?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in a reality TV show doesn't guarantee notability. There are lots of reality TV characters who don't have Wikipedia articles and are only covered in the context of the show: e.g. the stars of Storage Wars, Hillbilly Handfishin', or Made in Chelsea. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in addition to the reality show, Coots received widespread notoriety for: 1. His death. 2. His role in the death of Melinda Brown. 3. His various snake-related arrests. ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The show doesn't even have an article. This is a snake handling preacher who died of a snakebite. This is not notable. If we were to cobra every single snake handling related death, Wikipedia's editors would never stop taipan. Other famed snakebite deaths with articles were people who had done something other than just get bitten: Cleopatra, or George Went Hensley, the founder of the Church of God with Signs Following. Anaconda this, the page should be deleted. And for the record, this post is not just for the puns: the page really should be deleted. Paris1127 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete venomination, since there's no place to merge him into. This article bites! Although he made the news 'round here. — Wyliepedia 21:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rattle be the day. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I know of this story from hearing about it on the national news, so I won't be providing links.  This guy was known about before the death.  ABC evening news specifically mentioned that they had been following this preacher.  The preceding coverage has made the death much more newsworthy, including I see in the article some international coverage.  You might argue that the attention was not so focused at the time on this one participant, but this story shows that the lens of history does not have a constant focus.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I know of this story from hearing about it on the national news" WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever removed any news sources from articles because Wikipedia is not news?  Unscintillating (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without checking all of my 328,000+ edits, I'd say yes. Why, have you? And good to see your bad-faith WP:POINTY edit was reverted too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wow, you two are Hisssterical ...--Stemoc (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adder-boy. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't actually provide any examples of news sources removed from Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not news?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. Thanks for asking. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of you are making jokes about this just being a Darwin award story. However, snake handling is an interesting part of the history of Appalachian religious culture and fringe elements of Christianity. (Although I agree it sounds crazy). Coots had become a de facto face and spokesman for what remains of this tradition, long before his death. There are plenty of references to establish notability outside of his death stories and reality show.74.143.195.230 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral At present the article does not make it look like he is notable. However if what 74.143.195.230 says is true, and this person has lots of sources mentioning him outside the context of his death, I would support inclusion. One issue I have is "how big was his church?" Also, did anyone outside his congregation look to him as a religious leader?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found some better sources that focus more on him while he was alive. Here [17] is a book that might provide more information in the part I can't read. It is looking to me like John Wayne "Punkin" Brown, Jr., might be more notable even than this guy, and it is clear that deaths among pastors and members in churches that practice serpent handling are not notable in and of themselves, but this guy seems to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on the other hand our article on Church of God with Signs Following, which is the loose body of snake-handling churches, says "Over sixty cases of death as the result of snakebites in religious worship services have been documented in the United States." This is in a movement that has between 1,000 and 5,000 adhearants, and between 40 and 100 congregations. Not all adhearents have ever directly participated in snake handling. There also seem to have been additional deaths that resulted from ingesting poison.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
do we really want to set a precedence? people die of snake bites every year.. this man was not famous, he was only made 'notable' by NatGeo and that was limited to certain parts of America, outside of USA, no one knows who he issss.. he is not Steve Irwin. if anything, his mention here should be enough..he most definitely DOES NOT deserve his very own article--Stemoc (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of The Bahamas, Ottawa[edit]

High Commission of The Bahamas, Ottawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This article merely confirms its address and current ambassador. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the relationships might be a different story but the building itself is not notable. Stalwart111 02:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. + move Decoupling (disambiguation) over it. slakr\ talk / 15:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decoupling[edit]

Decoupling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant page. This is an illusion of an article about the concept of "decoupling". It is not, despite numerous possible refefences. In fact, it is just a collection of sections about the meaning of the term "decoupling" in numerous mutually unrelated areas, and the references are not about "decoupling" in general, but about respective specific areas. Basically, it is nothing but an overblown disambiguation page. Therefore I am suggesting to delete this page and move Decoupling (disambiguation) under this title. - Altenmann >t 08:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no concrete concept here around which an article can be built. It is better as a simple disambiguation page. bd2412 T 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's fundamental to an encyclopedia that each article should be about one topic. The word decoupling does not appear to be a notable subject itself (unlike most/all of the other articles in Category:English words). As there are some referenced sections (incidentally, there were a whole load of uncited sections that I removed a year ago) it may be worth userfying the page and making the relevant wikiprojects aware in case there's any material they can use, but that shouldn't get in the way of deleting the page (and then moving the dab page over it). Alternatively, redirect the page to the dab (and, if considered necessary, let the projects know that there's some referenced material in the redirect's page history). DexDor (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decouple from Wikipedia per nom and move the dab page over. There's no need for two pages doing basically the same thing. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a dab page. Look at the page history([18]) to see why the AFD is needed. DexDor (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is basically a more long-winded and less useful version of the DAB page. Then move the existing DAB page to this title. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Thompson (Wisconsin)[edit]

Charles H. Thompson (Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure state officeholder with no viable assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN, either as Sec. of WisDOT or with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Definitely a real person, but does not seem a person of much note. (by comparison, the current secretary was a state legislator and so passes WP:POLITICIAN). Chris857 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading WP:POLITICIAN, and thinking of him as a cabinet member, he probably does pass. Neutral. Chris857 (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Senior civil servant heading a major state department. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
explanation - there is a clear-cut consensus at WP:POLITICIAN that national and state/provincial legislators are inherently notable. There is, at present, no such consensus for state/provincial cabinet officials in political entities where such offices are not (indeed, cannot, in many cases) be held by legislators. That is the rationale behind my support for deletion. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, I see no substantive evidence for notability (and I live in his state). Necrothesp: the concept of "senior civil servant" does not really apply to a situation like this; Thompson's just another run-of-the-mill political appointee at the state level, of no particular note and with a very low profile. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wisconsin Department of Transportation is a major cabinet-level statewide office [19] - NOT obscure. Easily passes WP:POLITICIAN point #1. I don't understand how this is being discussed. And per unanimous keeps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles H. Thompson (besides the same nominator). Royalbroil 03:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If members of a state legislature are notable (which is the current consensus), than people who have held two top state-wide cabinet level positions are even more clearly notable. There is a problem that we actually have very spotty coverage of these people, but that is no reason to abandon the articles we do have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is hardly obscure, state level cabinet role is definitely notable. --Soman (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. (WP:Non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dahavi Fa[edit]

Dahavi Fa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. See WP:NF. Sources fail WP:RS. PROD tag was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dharmadhyaksha: That is definitely a strong point. Could you quote the portion from the reference you have cited that mentions the film won awards. I could not find using browser's find option. Tito☸Dutta 10:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah sure! The sources actually calls it "10th F". The film's title's meaning is F division of class 10th of the school; the story revolves about the students of this division which is usually the last division meant for the kids with lower grades in exams who are simply considered useless and future-goons. (Check the title's styling in the now uploaded DVD cover art.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw AfD nom Based on added sources indicating major awards I am withdrawing the AfD nom. Recommend speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic game rankings[edit]

Metacritic game rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Metacritic game rankings" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This article in its entirety lists the games listed on Metacritic. Has no notability, has no source. Maybe not a copyright violation, but it just copies listings from another website. Soetermans. T / C 07:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like you say, no references and not exactly notable. If it serves no purpose, then it should be deleted. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded given that they can be accessed on both Metacritic and the game articles themselves. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So while this list has no sources, it obviously could. Metacritic keeps lists by genre as well as the overall rankings, but the point remains that there is no significant coverage of these "top lists" themselves. I'll add that these lists are indiscriminate collections of information when there is no rationale for cutting off each sublist at ten items and that I don't see the rationale for adding the user scores, which are fickle user-contributed content. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar ♔ 13:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar ♔ 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 14:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming with Dolphins[edit]

Swimming with Dolphins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this is independently notable from the article on the creator and sole member, Adam Young (better known for Owl City). That article already covers this musical side-excursion. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Sailing. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Workers League – Fourth International[edit]

International Workers League – Fourth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in the article indicates that this organization is notable. There are no references to independent sources. Note that the article was nominated for deletion once before, and that the result was no consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have added an independent source and referenced the article accordingly. Finnusertop (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, LIT-CI is one of the major Trotskyist tendencies, several of its sections notable. --Soman (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the source from Alexander does indicate that this is notable, at least by the rather fractious standards of modern communist organisations. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Marginal, but clearly they are real and attract some notability. JASpencer (talk) 11:15, 1 March 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. Unanimous WilyD 13:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Thost[edit]

Rory Thost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:BLP created by Defender miz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Cirt (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Problematic edit history includes prior creation of a hoax article, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing' Joe. — Cirt (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sure it's a hoax. It looks like he actually exists but does a series of bit parts as a voice actor confer notability? Not sure. Probably not. I can't find much by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nothing much actually. Stalwart111 07:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similar questions were raised when the user created the bio page for Rebecca Frasier, which evidently then had to be deleted, twice. — Cirt (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, same sort of thing. Stalwart111 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 14:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Doss[edit]

Cat Doss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. No significant roles in notable productions. Prod was removed with the dubious claim she has "mid-importance role in the upcoming film Captain America: The Winter Soldier". The imdb page used to support this statement does not list Doss at all, let alone for any "mid-importance" part. The claim of activism appears to be original research. It lists a 26 year old student Amanda Catherine Doss with no way of knowing if it's producer, actress, filmmaker Cat Doss. Even if those two things were supported by a reliable source they would not make her notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What else are you looking for? The person's had quite a few film roles and is a reporter. Clearly people are looking for information about her since the page has been visited over 600 times in the past 90 days: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Cat_Doss. Its notable and people are looking for this information. How exactly would they be serviced by deleting the page? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What more am I looking for? Notability, verifiability, no original research. Just being in a few films does not make her notable. Just being a reporter is just someone doing a job, nothing notable there either. 600 views is not many, nothing special there (and how many of them are from you). Almost a third appear to be on the first day when the page was under construction, with you and new page patrollers looking at the page for construction reasons, not to look for info about her. Take them out and the figures are even more ordinary. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 05:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless sources meeting WP:BASIC are found, I was unsuccessful myself (and tried HIghbeam in addition to the usual suspects.) --j⚛e deckertalk 15:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G7 slakr\ talk / 09:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr William Guild Mortification[edit]

Dr William Guild Mortification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just the primary document, no history, no discussion, just a transcript of the document.

It should be deleted here and moved to wikiquote. ColonelHenry (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to have it moved to wikiquote. I am not familiar with this resource. The purpose of the entry - which I "translated" from a document dated 1825, which itself is a copy from the original MS in Latin from 1633, is to allow various other articles to reference important wording for the residents of the hospital in 1633. If wikiquote is the right place and it can be referenced , e.g. seeDr Guild Mortification etc.. for a wikipedia article - then OK.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's try another "location" It is rather confusing. All I want to do is 1 provide a series of wiki articles for others to read 2 provide detailed sources/ references so that others can evaluate the wiki articles.

I don't find time to enter into interesting discussions about process. My apologies. Just indicate where the material that I teanscribed might be located AND suggest how readers might easily link from the wiki article to the "evidence" Any help welcome Ray

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6/2/14 There is a general principle involved here. As I understand Wikipedia, the entries should contain sufficient information for readers to cross-reference and corroborate views/ facts/ etc. Together with the "open" system of moderation and editing this gives a reasonably good quality check on the content of entries. In the case of historical events/ places/ movements there are many original documents dating from medieval times. In one entry I have made Bishop Dunbar's Hospital I have the original Ms from James V (1531) giving authority to the establishment of the Hospital AND most importantly laying down the nature of the institution IN THE WORDING and SENTIMENTS of the day. The Dr Guild Mortification (1633) is a similar situation - except that so far I have been unable to trace the original MS. The Wikiquote entry is my “translation” of an document from 1825 which itself is probably a translation ( from the 17th C Scots). There are many other important contemporary or near contemporary documents that would be useful for readers of general entries to read in full. I think this is the heart of the issue. How should Wikipedia present documents (out of copyright etc etc) to allow readers corroborate / check claims made in entries? Ray Oaks

Documents can be uploaded on WikiSource. Wikipedia is not for original documents, or for original research using old documents; a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people write about original documents. Note that documents on WikiSource aren't normally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, but they can be referenced or linked to from Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| confer _ 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leathes Prior[edit]

Leathes Prior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another firm of lawyers. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep - assuming that everything can be verified by reliable sources, this passes my standards. However, it needs to be re-written with actual footnotes. No court of appeals would accept this paucity of authority if this were an appellate brief. Likewise, articles need citations to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| babble _ 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollits LLP[edit]

Rollits LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising and not notable. Nothing distinctive about this law firm. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with 60 attorneys, and being over 150 years old, this passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability of a law firm shouldn't be automatic nor any different from other companies. I've looked for useful sources and there are none that establish sufficient notability to meet WP:CORP. This was the best I could find. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Added cite. It would be odd if a 170+ year old firm didn't have a large number of non-web cites available. Has enough cites currently in order to not be deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As in WP:MUSTBESOURCES? The cite you added doesn't demonstrate notability, and those already cited are trivial mentions in low-quality sources. I'm cutting the blatantly promotional content about charity events (which companies don't do this?). SmartSE (talk)
      • The firm has a separate charity law section, so their support of charities might be notable. I added more cites supporting some of the listed law sections and a little of the history. My point was that the available print references could only be found by someone willing to dig into archives of 1800s and 1900s newspapers, books, etc. Per WP:NTEMP, if the firm would have passed WP:GNG during any one of the 170+ years, then it passes WP:GNG today. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep – but only if all unreferenced stuff (which is virtually everything and still with much promo) and living non-notable people are removed, which would reduce it to a short stub. I concur with SmartSE's WP:MUSTBESOURCES here, which would apply to all statements in the article. In reply to Bearian's "being over 150 years old" (above), the law firm example given through a nav-through provides verified reliable evidence for all statements – this article doesn't. The problem with articles such as this, with few to no sources to prove notability in Wikipedia terms, is that if it is kept, a whole load more promo and uncited stuff will ride in on its saddle. I have removed the wikilink to the wrong Joseph Kaye – cricketer, not builder. Acabashi (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which currently living people are you referring to? It is standard practice to include the top level people in the Infobox especially if properly cited as done here. Hoovers is explicitly noted as a suitable source by WP:LISTED.VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| confer _ 05:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After over a month and three relistings, there is no consensus at this time regarding retention or deletion of the article. There are distinct possibilities of a page move and/or merge(s), the discussion of which can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Syed Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a cleverly crafted article about the subject but who's fundamental notability for an article here requires discussion. He appeared briefly in a TV reality show. The article appears stuffed with fluff to make the subject significantly more notable than they are. Leaky Caldron 20:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 01:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article about him has been created on the London Wiki - possibly needing some development, so a compromise with WP can be reached. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since his participation on The Apprentice: the subject has maintained his media and business profile, and gained more notability. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of The Apprentice candidates (UK series two)#Syed Ahmed. The subject is largely notable for his appearance on the reality TV show and so is only notable for one event as per WP:1E, however, the subject has remained active since then. His career after his TV appearances are verifiable in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources so he at the very least fulfills WP:BASIC. They should not be included in his "mini-bio" at the suggested merge page. N4 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is well sourced and subject seems notable. YousufMiah (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources independent, reliable & article meets GNG. 81.129.157.53 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| chat _ 05:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third relist rationale - While there is a decent quantity of discussion here, there is not much policy-based discussion on whether or not this individual passes WP:GNG (and why, or why not). I think the discussion is close to attaining a consensus, but not quite there yet. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 05:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most sources refer to/highlight his appearance on The Apprentice, which does not merit notability. The article, as the nomination states, is fancruft to keep him visible. — Wyliepedia 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke Willmott[edit]

Clarke Willmott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

They are big but not distinctive or notable. This is pure advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a business is unusually large, that is distinctive. James500 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This firm has received coverage in a number of books previewed in GBooks. James500 (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the books aren't about them are they? They are mostly legal directories like yellow pages. Every firm has an entry. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think every firm gets an entry? Where does it say that? Link please. James500 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources just aren't strong enough to establish notability. Thelawyer.com is a dead link and the legal500 refs are from directories. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Lawyer" has an overview of the firm here. They say it is the 75th largest by turnover. I can't access the "The Lawyer UK 200 2013" either, but I suspect that is because I am neither subscribed nor logged in. Sources are not required to be free. James500 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Reliable refs no article. Szzuk (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is manifest nonsense. There are reliable sources, particularly in GBooks (e.g. Chambers [20] and Pritchard's "The Legal 500" [21]). The issue that has been raised is the depth of coverage (which I am not sure I agree with since the firm is mentioned on 43 pages in one book and 33 in the other and some of the comments don't look like entries in a phonebook). James500 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted. If you address the issue - depth of coverage - I'll redact the delete too, otherwise I'll stay with it. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 05:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Edelstein[edit]

Neal Edelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only RS ref I could locate was the LA Times story cited in the article, which is primarily based on an interview with the subject and not usable to show notability. In addition, there seems to be a flurry of additions of this guys name to different articles, prompting me to suspect this may be a promotional article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He may qualify simply as part of the production team for two films that were nominated for or received major Best Film awards; The Straight Story was nom'd for Palm d'Or, Mulholland Drive]] one several critics best-picture awards. I know that the Oscar for Best Picture is considered a producers award; do we apply that logic to other awards? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| babble _ 04:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of music used by Apple Inc.[edit]

List of music used by Apple Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect this fails WP:SAL due to a lack of reliable sources discussing the topic as a group. Most of the current referencing currently consists of primary sources that demonstrate that yes, such and such a song was used in an Apple ad. As part of WP:BEFORE, I located two probably reliable articles that constitute the right sort of reference, and added them as a new Further reading section. But Mashable is a pretty light source, and the Rolling Stone article was more about the artists than the songs or Apple's advertising. There are also blog sources out there, like this. Perhaps there are more reliable sources out there, but with a topic as intensely studied as Apple, the fact that I'm not finding more is a red flag for me.

Even if the article is kept, it could certainly use some trimming. Do we really need to know every song Apple played at its developers conferences? --BDD (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only known source for all apple songs, please do not delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.191.66 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to our policy against original research, that's actually a reason to delete, not keep. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the page, it's very informative (in my opinion). Lack of sources is correct and a lot of them should be added. If it's going to be deleted, please save the article anywhere else! --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly transfer some information to Apple Inc. advertising. This list is insanely over-detailed. There's nothing wrong with discussing Apple's advertising and their use of music in advertising, since they're a major and innovative advertiser making considerable use of music. But this list goes well beyond describing their advertising to listing every song they played at any event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| gab _ 04:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list tries to be a complete list of all music Apple has ever used. So trimming is not really something you can do. Why don't we try to send the (ridiculously detailed) list over to some other site, possibly to http://apple.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Screen? Afterwards we can get rid of these thing and redirect users to Apple Inc. advertising. 89.182.113.206 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP did you guys waste a second to think about the hard and long work done in this? I bet this took abround 2 hrs. It's informative and has a degree in nostalgia though the timeline is not too far in the past. So i vote for keep. I carefully imported this into Music Wiki because this one will probably deleted. --Saviour1981 (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably good, because there's clearly interest in the piece, even if Wikipedia is not the proper place to host it. I'm sure some WP:HARDWORK has been done on this, but that's not relevant to whether or not the article should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what i'm sayin' - if WP's the wrong place, Wikia has an english spoken music page where it can be added to. i already did. Nevertheless, i hate it when hard work got despised... Cheers, goodie ^^ --Saviour1981 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Unfortunately, due to low participation after 3 listing periods, I cannot say with certainty that there is a consensus here to delete or a consensus here to keep. This is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janis and Saint Christopher[edit]

Janis and Saint Christopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not in worldcat, tho some e-novels are. References are basically press releases. Accepted at AfC . Maybe there is something here I do not understand that makes for notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has 3rd party sources like QMagazin to prove nobility.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| spout _ 04:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Hoban[edit]

T.J. Hoban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references are either press releases or trivial or related to him. Nothing in his career seems to show any importance.

Accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 04:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No major roles in film or TV (occasional appearances or guest roles only, often with minimal speaking). Sources don't quite establish notability per WP:GNG: it's mainly directories, casting sites, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shock: Social Science Fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shock: Social Science Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet general notability guidelines due to lack of reliable sources. Ewilen (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| express _ 04:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Dealtry[edit]

John Dealtry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD removed with the rationale that "the book about him establishes notability". I don't buy that, can find no trace of the work (although William Cooper is a pretty miserable name to punch into search engines) & doubt that it was more than an obit published as a pamphlet. Only substantial refereence is to the man's tomb. This may be notable, but I don't think the person is. TheLongTone (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy work on my part, should have tried using the title of the workk, which, as Google books shows, is, as I supposed, a very short privately printed work, and in no way establishes notability,TheLongTone (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not much is known about him, that is true - but he is still remembered in York after 200 years - can that be said of other minor celebrities listed on Wikipedia? He wrote books, had a book written about him, re-built an important building (Judges' Lodgings) and is commemorated by a magnificent monument in York Minster.

I am sure there is a lot more - see e.g. [22] and [23]

¬¬¬¬
Have you actually read the "book"? As noted, it is no more than one would expect of a funeral oration. Twelve pages, of which four are text. It's a pamphlet, not a book.TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an 18th Century figure with coverage in the 18th and 19th centuries. Writing about someone back then was a much bigger deal than it would be today and amounts to significant coverage. Add to that the sources are still extant today to show that coverage in these books is meaningful. Certainly there was enough significance to not tag for CSD. And sometimes quality of coverage is more important than volume. If there is enough to show notable achievements, then that suffices. If the article creator could add more sourcing, that would help a lot to keep the article. (Could someone do something with the formatting of this discussion. Hard to read.) Dlohcierekim 15:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jb1944: there are claims of significance here that are not made in the article. It would be helpful to put them in the article with sourcing. You mention other claims of significance in the article. It would be helpful to elaborate and source there. Dlohcierekim 15:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| chat _ 04:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dealtry was a doctor in York, who left his widow enough money to erect a gsignificant tomb for him. That is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to delete the notability claim was tenuous, and there has been no improvement in sourcing. The nice epitaph is not enough and I've changed my mind about the suitability of the book. Dlohcierekim 23:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose nshala[edit]

Ambrose nshala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person fails WP:BLP. There are no reliable sources with significant coverage. The article is also an autobiography (the author reveled himself to be Ambrose Nshala at Wikimedia Commons). The same article was already speedily deleted twice, and is now recreated with some "references" none of which points to a reliable source. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I would like to declare that I'm the author of the article and it is true that it is a biography of a living person. However, I believe the proposal to delete it is based on the deletion history of the article on wikipedia. Unfortunately the first time I created it, I was not well versed with creating articles and references, so I failed to include reliable sources because of the syntax and not because they were not available.I request this article be judged in this light and not the shadow of the past. AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most references made are reliable. I have also deleted most personal information from unofficial sources I could not reference. AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also confirm that I am not Ambrose Nshala, though I declared at Wikimedia Commons the photos I uploaded were copyrighted to him, because he gave me explicit permission to do so, having contacted him. AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You uploaded two photos of Nshala at Wikimedia Commons and tagged them both as "own work". In the "author" field you typed "[[User:AfroPianist|Ambrose Nshala]]" which clearly implies that AfroPianist and Ambrose Nshala are the same person. If you are not him, and you have the permission from the author to use photos under free license, you have to send the permission to the OTRS team. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambrose Nshala is a respectable member of our community and a leader of various development and humanitarian efforts. AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi User:AfroPianist. I've struck the duplicate "keep" parts of your comments above, because in Articles for deletion discussions in English Wikipedia only one denoted !vote is allowed. However, please feel free to comment all you'd like within the discussion. Thanks. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the editing to remove the duplicate "keep" parts above that were previously there. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 09:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont know who this person is so I read the article over and over. Mr Nshala is a vice pressident of a bank. He is a president of a rotary chapter in his town and he is a public accountant. He is also a politician in his region. Still my question is is he notable and for what? Ok he might be notable amongs Rotary members or voters in his region but is that enough? If the writer of the article could write down what makes him notable in the article itself with some reffs than I will change my vote but as it is I must question notability issue. I might sound harsh and I dont mean it. I apologyze. I am only trying to make a point.Stepojevac (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 04:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't possibly see what the subject is notable for. He has a couple of locally high-profile roles in different companies and community groups but nothing that rises to the level of national significance, thus the lack of anything other than local newspaper coverage. That's not enough for a pass against WP:GNG in my view. Stalwart111 07:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His only possibly defining characteristic is being vice president of a bank. However, bank vice presidents are not notable. If he was president of Bank M, maybe, but not as vice president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Torto[edit]

Robert Torto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:PERP, there's no indication that this subject meets the guidelines for an article about the perpetrator, regardless of how much news coverage his crime and trial garnered. Further, the three firebombings (one of which resulted in deaths), took place in the same two-week period: I thus suggest that WP:BLP1E applies as well.

I do not intend to comment on whether the firebombings themselves are the appropriate subject of an article, but whether a living person who has been diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder and apparently judicially confined to a mental institution is an appropriate subject for an article (I also note that the article does not state whether the subject has been convicted of murder). WP:PERP counsels a negative response in this case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Involved in a long series of attacks, so the one event claim is a bit weird. There is no exemption of article coverage for insane people. See for example Charles Manson. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:PERP for why Manson is a dramatically different case than somebody who committed 3 firebombings over the course of two weeks. If the firebombings are significant, write about them, not about the perpetrator. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that he was also involved in other attacks. Which is why he has an article about him. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A two-week spree of attacks is not more than one event. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - basic covering WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? I addressed why this criterion isn't met in my nomination. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have. So why the POV pushing from you?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, garden variety hate crime, no real lasting impact or popular interest (such as in the Manson case, mentioned above). Terrible for the victims and their families of course, but Wikipedia is not a crime dossier. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
If you compare almost any crime to the Manson case you get that result. It is like comparing apples and oranges. No wikipedia is not a crime dossier but it still has articles on notable crimes such as this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 04:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unusual crime with significant coverage. -- GreenC 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't address the WP:BLP1E issue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLP1E isn't an arbitrary rule, it was created to protect low profile individuals from unwanted public attention. It doesn't always apply in single event situations. See BLP1E, situation must meet all three conditions. It gives an example of John Hinckley, Jr., which is very similar to this case: a crazy guy assassinates someone and becomes infamous along the way. "His role was both substantial and well documented". That is the case here, point three doesn't apply it fails BLP1E. -- GreenC 06:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I guess WP:BIO1E is what I was looking for then. Consider Steve Bartman. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well true if the event is more significant than the perp. I'd say in this case the perp is the main focus of the event and so would be better as a perp article than an event article. Of course that is hard to say for sure since no one has written an event article, if you think it should be primarily event coverage, probably a better course than deletion would be to first create an event article than merge/redirect this to it. Or worse case do a rename of this article with refocus on the event. But all that seems like a lot of busy work since we already have a decent perp article that covers the event. -- GreenC 15:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lankiveil and WP:PERP. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E which is a stronger policy based reasoning than the keep rationales. Secret account 23:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Showuld we really have an article on a man who was found criminally insane? The only possible merit is to enable such cases to be studied together. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep (Just this side of neutral). I think the fact that he got wide coverage and got a nickname in the press seems to press in favor of him having his own article even under WP:PERP, but the coverage does not seem to have been sustained, which certainly is a strike against him. That said, WP:PERP is a guideline and not a policy, and I'm not sure how much I agree with the "sustained coverage" rationale. I think that there are many short term news items that never get revisited that still have inherent notability. I'm not sure this is one of these cases, and I think the ideal situation would be to merge this content into an article on the event. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 14:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man Meat Fire[edit]

Man Meat Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call that depth. Minor mentions on the BBC and a press release from the firm that they have applied for a trademark? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ping User:Philafrenzy: Did you preview the full page, independent article from The Grocer? It appears you didn't include it in your analysis. Also, in this source, don't forget to click on the "transcript" button on the page. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you? The first two are the same Dragons Den style pitch at different places, the third is a weblink only as far as I can see, the fourth is a decent article from The Grocer which I have read on Nexis and the fifth is a press release. It's not enough surely. Are we going to give an article to every firm that manages to get a low level of publicity for their product? This firm's product is more tasty than they are notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third BBC source in my !vote above here is a radio broadcast that needs to be listened to, rather than read. Also, I don't consider BBC coverage to be "low level" whatsoever, as it broadcasts in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. Furthermore, BBC has very high standards for journalistic objectivity, "to provide impartial public service broadcasting..." (quote per the BBC article). Northamerica1000(talk) 01:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the individual BBC programme doesn't it? Being on screen for 5 minutes on a not very important BBC programme is not enough, otherwise every game show contestant would have an article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in independent sources has any depth of coverage. Fails WP:CORP. Too promotional without independent commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi User:SmokeyJoe: See the preview here (scroll down on the page after opening it) of the full page article in The Grocer (the Grocer article is paywalled). It's a full-page article by an independent, reliable source. I personally consider a full-page article about a product to be significant coverage. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be write. I see images of text that are significant coverage. The question is: Are they independent? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 04:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 14:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Blackman[edit]

Stacy Blackman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article. Her book is published by Firstbooks.com, and is not even in worldcat . The writeups in CNN are just a string of quotes from her, CNN can be reliable, but sometimes they seem to publish what a publicist sends them. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think we should be questioning CNN as a source. They clearly establish that she has been running a business of some note.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although I have lots of friends who are bankers, who are quoted in the financial press all the time who might qualify similarly, I imagine these types of people would generally pass GNG. They probably have alumni magazine profiles with greater biographical detail and such. I don't like these types of articles, but I think they pass.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP is promotional dross. GNG not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. There's no credible assertion of notability either. Agricola44 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading WP:VANISPAM article. She was not profiled in those publications as the wiki article claims. This doesn't even mention her. Having one piece published (as a kind of interview) on CNN Money's website [24] doesn't make her notable, as DGG correctly noted. There is one introductory paragraph about her here, but the rest of that is she talking about Charles Schwab (as a former employee). Not imparting her much notability as explained in WP:CORPDEPTH "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I updated the references in the article in the citation format so it's easier to read. The book does appear in WorldCat. I changed the reference from Amazon to WorldCat and added a link to a podcast where the author is interviewed about the book. The write-ups in CNN and Fortune go way beyond just quotes, since they profile previous companies she has founded or joined. In some of those articles her name appears as Stacy Sukov, not Stacy Sukov Blackman or Stacy Blackman, which may have confused the most recent request to Delete. Notability is established by the multiple articles in credible news magazines that reference her and establish her as leader of a new business category - MBA Admission Consulting. It's factual and does not promote the business, rather describes her influence. Artfog (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The book is only held by 8 institutions, so it unfortunately does not contribute to any claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Simply a competent professional unless I see some profiles from mainstream news sources dedicated just to her accomplishments.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How many competent professionals have appeared on the cover of Fortune Magazine? She was profiled in a series of 4 articles in Fortune[25][26][27][28], and was put on the cover of the 3rd one [29] with her 2 co-founders after they had sold their company to what is now the Knot and were starting a new company at Idealab. I added a link to the cover in the article. That seems to me to fit the criteria of profiles from mainstream news sources dedicated just to her accomplishments. Artfog (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean a full biographical profile. I.e., does it tell us about her life partner, children, upbringing, parents, place where she was raised, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many competent recent MBAs have appeared on the cover of a business magazine doing profiles about recent MBAs? Probably quite a few. Just the same for doctors with medical publications, lawyers for bar association publications, etc. I mean more of what Tony is saying, though a series of articles can constitute significant coverage as well.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the topic of the article is unsavory to some since it deals with promotion, people who do promotion for a living can be notable. The topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| babble _ 04:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Piled high with bad sources that quote her rather than being about her, fail to even mention her, or seem purely promotional. The only one I saw that doesn't fail in those ways was the Pez one, and that's not enough to support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The series of 4 articles Fortune that I mentioned before [30][31][32][33] chronicle her experiences, far more than simple quotes. Can you please point to the articles that fail to mention her? All the articles reference her. Which ones are purely promotional? I addressed all the issues raised in the initial discussion and have responded to the latest delete request. As GreenC mentioned above "The topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG." Artfog (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are trivial mentions of the same story some 15 years ago. They are not remotely of the in-depth character required. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neutral I am not sure if this should be kept or not, but if it is kept, we really need to cut the fluff about all the profiles she has received in various magazines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I edited the article to be more biographical, which I modeled on the wikipedia article for User:David Eppstein - David Eppstein. I believe that fully addresses the concerns raised in the previous comments. —Artfog (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Artfog. I see that your first edit was to create this BLP and that many of your edits have been to it. Do you have a COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I first read of Stacy in Fortune and have tracked her career. I have learnt a lot about wikipedia through this process and I think that process has improved the quality of the article. I also realize that should have logged in whenever I've edited other articles in the past so there would be a record of my contributions. —Artfog (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Music of Nashville: Season 2, Volume 1[edit]

The Music of Nashville: Season 2, Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Sole source fails WP:RS. PROD was removed w/o explanation or improvement. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Album charted on the Billboard charts and was reviewed by AllMusic. Sources added. Eric444 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw AfD Based on added RS sources establishing clear notability. Recommend speedy close. Good sourcing Eric444. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 09:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Ozell[edit]

Sunny Ozell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently prodded and aborted AFD by an IP (or IPs?). The original prod text was: No establishment of sufficient notoriety in her own right other than being married to Patrick Stewart. Being married to Patrick Stewart does not automatically make her notable. I am also adding on: Does not even come close to meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Niamh (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor musician known mainly for being the wife of a notable person. Some wives gain notability in their own right, but not in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Timbuk2. to Timbuk2, where he is discussed WilyD 13:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Honeycutt[edit]

Rob Honeycutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. Of the 3 sources currently in the article, only 2 (references 1 and 3) even mention him. Google didn't turn up many other reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 02:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Timbuk2, a company he founded. He is not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Cyberethics. The nomination suggested redirection rather than deletion - easiest way is to boldly do so, so I have. Stalwart111 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet ethics[edit]

Internet ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic is sufficiently duplicated at Cyberethics#RFC 1087. This should be a redirect to that article. There is no need for a merge. Jojalozzo 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 09:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Horowitz[edit]

Richard Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced blp The Banner talk 22:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unsourced biography of a non-notable musician. It was primarily written by an IP, which could have been he subject writing about himself. PrairieKid (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not yet established, and I couldn't find very much on him. If we do end up getting adequate sources, then we'll need to give this article a complete makeover because it's a disaster.LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 14:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lewis (Totally Spies! character)[edit]

Jerry Lewis (Totally Spies! character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. See WP:GNG. And no sources. See WP:RS and WP:V. PROD was removed without explanation. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article's creator left a note on the talk page. I don't think it establishes notability but I mention it in the interest of fairness. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_February_18&oldid=1142629293"