Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 31 December 2 January >

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 and salt. Note: Further recreations of this article under a new name can be deleted/salted under WP:CSD#G4. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Students Organization of India MSO[edit]

Muslim Students Organization of India MSO (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 organization failing WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Previously deleted via an AfD, and no evidence that things have changed. Article is created by an account with a WP:COI, and is very heavily promotional to boot ("Aims and Objective" being an obvious example). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as another repost based on unreliable sources. In fact, the same unreliable sources that were an issue last time - the last AfD doesn't tell the whole story as the version of the article at that time was weeks after I removed the unreliable sources, tagged the article for citation needed and scoured the web for anything I can find. All these "sources" here are the same as the ones before. Seriously, take a look...TwoCircles which isn't reliable as discussed at the RS noticeboard here, the organization's own website, SunniCity and Siasat (which was also brought up and shot down at the RS noticeboard multiple times), a one-sentence mention in The Hindu...actually this was already discussed at the old article's talk page and the last AfD, I almost feel silly going into this much detail. Burn it down like Carthage and salt the earth. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And regarding the COI...let's just come out with it. This article was created by User:Msoamu, who just came off a six month topic ban from this very topic for POV pushing and edit warring. This organization's nickname is MSO, and it was founded at Aliargh Muslim University, often abbreviated AMU. In fact this organization, on some press releases on its website, refers to itself as "MSO AMU." I mean...seriously, this is just blatant advertising for an org with no proven notability, the guy behind this account could be the only active member. We don't know because there simply isn't any extensive coverage as required by WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Syed Muhammad Amin Miya Quadri Barkaati, and mention in that article as one sentence. Professor Syed Muhammad Amin Miya Quadri Barkaati is apparently patron-in-chief and president of the national executive council.[1] When I searched for Muslim Students Organization of India on Google, I got huge numbers of hits - lots of false positives. When I searched for "Muslim Students Organization of India" in inverted commas, I got 3 hits with the "s" spelling, and 15 with the "z" spelling. But even then some were false positives. If the article becomes a redirect, it will be easy to monitor whether someone is recreating the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is... with such a non-notable organization being so eager to promote itself, I'm not even sure I trust their own website on a claim like that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just found a Facebook group for this org...can't say much without respecting privacy, but there are at least four members in the group and this new Wikipedia article was being promoted on there December 21st, the same day User:Msoamu created it. I really don't trust anything from their site, it could just be a handful of guys trying to start a student group and using Wikipedia as a springboard. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Mainly copyvio most of which I've deleted (as is another article he created recently. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep-This Page was on wikipedia for many years and was deleted when Mezzomezzo removed its content ,and tagged it for Deletion.The official website might not be working at that time but I have found it www.msoofindia.net is very much active.

Mezzomezzo in the past has nominated almost all of the Article of Barelvi category for deletion but was unsuccessful.The MSO of India Page was deleted with the following last comment from a neutral editor that

  • If the organization is so moribund, and WP:RS so impossible to find, why does Google News reveal this hit from August 17 of this year? Wait, I see the news item is actually attributed to "Shujaat Ali Quadri ,National Secretary , MSO of India" at the bottom. So this is in fact some kind of news release? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC) and the

Mezzomezzo who had nominated the page for deletion had claimed that There is only one reliable sourced on this organization, consisting of only four sentences. I spent more than a week trying to findanything else and couldn't..... MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Students%27_Organization_of_India

Now With all due regards to neutral Wikipedians I would like to submit that this article belongs to a prominent organisation of the country which gets regular Media coverage in National Papers and TV channels and in Regional,Local Media.I would like to tell two Important points to readers that this organisation belongs to Indian Muslims who though great in numbers but are in minority here,they don't have news channels,news papers and magazines which can be said truly main stream.They get coverage by mainstream media only on controversial issues.Only results of Three websites comes under Google News like Twocircles.net,www.ummid.com ,www.milligazette.com while others like Muslimmorrir.com,Indiatomorrow.com www.sunnicity.com etc are not shown on google news.The community gets its voice covered in only Urdu language papers.The Milligazette is a only English language fortnightly and Two circle is only famous and prominent News site run by Indian Muslims.MSO which has organised mega rallies and conferences all over India,got extensive Media coverage,having strong network of its cadre,strong relationship with other bodies of Sufi community.I have tried to solve the copyright and POV issues and added many reliable and third party sources.Other neutral editors can also improve the Article accordingly.Msoamu (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Msoamu, all you did was add some more blog links and citations to the organization's own website. You're also in violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing with all the people you're tagging for this AfD. This is exactly the kind of behavior that got you topic banned in the first place. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you look at this AfD's history, s/he isn't canvassing; s/he instead appears to be copypasting other people's comments into this discussion, complete with signatures (that's a new one). Anyway, redirect to Mawlid. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 05:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Erpert, you're right, he's just copy pasting comments here. My mention of canvassing, though, will become clear when taking a look at his recent contribs. Same old stuff since I first encountered this guy and his drawer of socks back in 2007. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case Msoamu tries to bounce the "canvassing" claims back on me, then I should point out that I notified every single person involved in the previous AfD, regardless of what they wrote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These notable English daily papers,news sites,Magazines and other Prominent neutral sources confirmed the notability of the organization and its presence in mainstream media.This is despite the fact that Indian organizations are covered mainly in Non English sources.I will try to add other notable sources also.Msoamu (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, you haven't provided any evidence that these websites have covered your organization. The closest thing I can see that even comes close is [4], which is a mere passing mention that a member of your organization is also a member of theirs. [5] makes no mention of "muslim students", or MSOAMU, or even AMU. I can claim that I have been mentioned in a million reliable sources, but that doesn't make me notable without proof. Your attempt at refspamming here fails that miserably. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are You following the discussion?Are not these websites there on the Article itself? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Students_Organization_of_India_MSO#References.Msoamu (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly, no, they aren't there, and that's also one of the most appalling attempts at refspam I've seen in recent times. And you've not even formatted them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added Titles to references, will try to format but can u help me in improving it ? which website I discussed above as a source is not in he Article it self when u said mostly ,no ?Msoamu (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Whether or not to keep the article hinges on whether the argument to delete (because the sources are insufficient and/or unreliable) or to keep (because the sources are sufficient) is stronger. There is not even a rough consensus as to whether the reliability of the sources is sufficient to retain the article. —Darkwind (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operação Prato[edit]

Operação Prato (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 appears to be an entirely non-notable UFO flap. All of the sources we have available are of low quality, and almost certainly not WP:RS. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources on this article definitely fails WP:RS and no other sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ufo.com.br is the official website of Revista UFO, a magazine edited by noted ufologist Ademar José Gevaerd. It's been around since the 80's. Clearly passes WP:RS. A quick Google search resulted in even more reliable sources, which I'll add to the article to strengthen its relevance. Victão Lopes Fala! 15:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: not to mention that it was subject of a 60-minute TV program by Rede Globo, Brazil's largest TV channel, and that episode is listed at the end of the page. Unlike what the comments above are trying to imply, it does passes WP:RS, with ease. Victão Lopes Fala! 16:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: UFO magazines are rarely considered to be reliable sources given that they tend to be strongly biased towards a number of fringe theories. Is there a more mainstream source we might consider? --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: yes, I found and added three to the article. Victão Lopes Fala! 19:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I do not think the sources you added are WP:RS. The Globo TV appears to be promotional in nature, it's basically advertising a TV show about UFOs. Ufo.com.br is a fringe site which promotes UFO content, and is not a reliable source. The Telefonica source is the briefest of mentions and does not count as substantial coverage. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Forgive me, Globo, Terra and Folha are RS. They're among the leading news companies in Brazil, they are used in tons of articles here, and I've never seen anyone questioning their usage as a source. That TV show is not about UFOs, it is about police and military-related events. Only that particular episode was about UFOs. Operação Prato was also subject of an episode of The History Channel's UFO Files, so now we've got two reliable and notable TV programs airing content about it for 60 minutes to a nation-wide audience. UFO.com.br promotes UFO content because it is focused on UFO content. Is Billboard magazine unreliable because it promotes music? Victão Lopes Fala! 05:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. UFO TV shows and UFO web sites are never considered objective sources.23:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC) LuckyLouie (talk)
    • Comment: There are no UFO TV shows being used as sources, and the UFO websites are not the only ones. Victão Lopes Fala! 01:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Global Aerospace Monitoring and Disaster Management Springer mentions it. UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record Random House, covers it. Those took all of two seconds to find. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Could you kindly provide links to all of the relevant texts of the above so that we can determine if they are sufficiently reliable sources? The text of "Global Aerospace Monitoring and Disaster Management" does not seem to be online and no reliable source connects it with this UFO flap. The other book you mention seems to be a UFO conspiracy book, the kind of which are rarely considered to be reliable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read it on GBooks, and Springer are most certainly RS. Random House are a well established publisher, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record is written by Leslie Kean, an investigative journalist and co-founder of the Coalition for Freedom of Information and the book was in the NYT best seller list. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Basically, we have an article that claims that UFOs attacked and harmed Brazilian civilians, that a national military force intervened, and that great significance is attached to the suicide of a military officer. You can understand that WP:REDFLAG requires us to find multiple, objective sources for such extraordinary and sensational claims. The fact that all the sources (except for blog entries by UFO conspiracy believer Leslie Kean in the Huff Post alleging that alien spacecraft actually landed in Brazil, which aren't considered factual or notable) are in Portuguese makes it difficult to verify their objectivity and if they are being accurately used in the article. For example, the EFE source says Operation Prato existed but extraordinary claims made regarding it haven't been proven. The Grupo Folha source goes a bit further and says the military was skeptical of the UFO reports and nothing came of the "Operation" except UFOlogists later claiming a conspiracy/coverup. The sensational tabloid story in Rede Globo and the paranoid claims at "Ufo.com" are not objective at all, and must be disregarded. So the question brought up by this AfD remains: Is the "Operation" a notable event of historical significance? Have high quality sources given this event in depth attention? Are there adequate objective and independent sources with which to write an encyclopedic article? So far, I don't think so. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All three questions have been answered already. However, you and Salimfadhley just label all sources we provide as unreliable, non-objective, sensational or whatever, so I'll just wait for an administrator to close this discussion as "no consensus". The sources are there, if you deliberately choose not to accept them, there's nothing I can do. By the way, I would be very happy if anyone could show me the exact guideline, rule or discussion that determined that any UFO-related source is most certain to be unreliable. Victão Lopes Fala! 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terra, Globo and Folha de S.Paulo are reliable mainstream sources in Brazil. --Carioca (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The standard which applies to sources about extraordinary or fringe claims is Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Sourcing and attribution. Furthermore, I think you might be confusing the word "Source" with "Publisher". Globo, Terra etc may be somewhat reputable publishers but not everything they publish can be considered a historically reliable source. I'd be happy to explain more if you require clarification. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the fringe theory guideline. But this operation is not a fringe theory, it did exist, only the presence of UFOs is questionable, though the released official documents suggest strange phenomena in the skies. Now, who's going to judge whether a certain source by a fine publisher is reliable? And on what basis would it be determined? Never heard of this possibility, and never had problems here when citing sources by well-established publishers. By the way, just added even more sources, and removed/corrected a few of the UFO.com.br ones that were linking to unrelated pages. Victão Lopes Fala! 04:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would like to just bring this to the discussion: http://www.mufon.com/bob_pratt/oprato.html. MUFON hosted website of Operation Prato. In my mind its reliable in that its actually showing testimony from the towns people and sketches of "ufos" from the military personnel of the operation. It at lease show substance/evidence of the events occurrence and importance, aliens or not. I'd add it to the list but im god awful at editing wiki articles. Its hosted by MUFON, which I would say is a good thing. It does have a crummy layout but I want to say its pretty old, posted at lease by 2005, earliest 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezoncrack (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC) — Cheezoncrack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: per Jeffrd10. Newsjunky12 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) - Association of Deletionist Wikipedians[reply]
  • Keep. For the moment I would say keep this article as the subject relates to an actual historical set of events (whatever anyone's interpretation of them may be) that is of interest sociologically as well as possibly in other ways. The article does however need re-developing. Perhaps most notably the link to the project's documentation needs to be either repaired or the documents summarized, with references, in the text. That would solve the problem of credible sources. Agree that the officers death is not immediately relevant to the topic - or not evidence is presented to that effect anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Mugan (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Shafer[edit]

Steven Shafer (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 Wikipedia page refers to me. I have several concerns, and I think the easiest solution is to simply delete the page on the basis that I don't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability.

I have excellent evidence that the page was created by Conrad Murray's defense team following his trial for the death of Michael Jackson. Specifically, a review of the history of the page shows that at the time this article appeared, the ONLY reference was to my defense of Robert Markman. Concurrently, Paul White, the anesthesiologist expert for Conrad Murray, circulated e-mails saying "You can't believe what Shafer has been up to. It is about to appear on the Internet." And, voila!, my page appeared.

Robert Markman is an anesthesiologist who used propofol in his home to treat his daughter, who had suffered for nearly 2 decades from intractable pain. Markman gave propofol as an anesthesiologist would, using a proper infusion pump, with full (and even excessive) monitoring. Dr. Markmen kept detailed records. Dr. Markmen documented the efficacy of propofol for his daughter's intractable pain. I knew of the case because Dr. Markman submitted it as a Case Report to Anesthesia & Analgesia, where I am Editor-in-Chief. This is exactly the opposite of Conrad Murray's indefensible use of propofol for Michael Jackson. However, I am certain the goal of creating my page was to suggest that my testimony against Conrad Murray was inconsistent with my defense of Dr. Markman's use of propofol.

I've been an anesthesiologist for 30 years. I'm a researcher, journal editor, and entrepreneur. However, my Wikipedia page suggests that I am primarily a legal consultant, a trivial part of my professional life. On the talk page associated with my page I have offered suggestions for what the page should contain if it is to actually represent what I do for a living. The material on misconduct has garnered significant media coverage.

Bbb23 has been helpful. We have had a lot of dialog, and I think it has been exemplary in terms of openness and thoughtful exchange. However, Bbb23 has also blocked my ability to have my page accurately reflect what I do. I've noted a number of changes on my talk page that should be added. It is clear that Bbb23 won't let me edit the page to make it accurate. I'm sure Bbb23 has his or her reasons, and I don't doubt the intent of Bbb23 to enforce Wikipedia policy. However, my page isn't accurate. It doesn't contain egregious errors of fact. Rather, it simply presents a very narrow, and hence distorted, aspect of my career. It seems to me that if I am to be listed in Wikipedia, then it should at least be accurate.

I have no need for a Wikipedia page. My Stanford page is accurate. Interested individuals (if any) can also find out quite quickly what I do simply by searching for Shafer SL on PubMed.

Rather than worry about my Wikipedia page, or have some sort of editing battle with Bbb23, I'd prefer to simply see the page deleted.

I appreciate your consideration.

Steve Shafer, Slshafer (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure precisely what Steve is referring to when he says I've blocked him from editing the article. I probably could dredge it up in the history, but I'll assume that Steve has a better memory of it than I do. My guess is the material he wanted to add wasn't reliably sourced, but that's a guess. I'm not going to vote on this nomination because I don't think I can review it objectively. I realize we don't delete articles just because the subject doesn't want them, but we do sometimes delete articles of subjects who have only borderline notability by Wikipedia's standards when the subject requests it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, is memory so short? You deleted my post yesterday because you said that the primary source (the report of the California Medical Board) wasn't acceptable. It is THE definitive source, hardly an entry that "wasn't reliably sourced." And, via the URL that I attached, it was accessible to any reader. This is all reflected on your talk page, where we have had a lengthy and thoughtful discussion. I've particularly appreciated our discussion about primary sources (my preference) and secondary sources (your preference).
A review of the history of the page will show that you have deleted everything I've edited.
Since I
1) can't predict what you will and will not consider an acceptable source,
2) defer to your expertise on Wikipedia norms, and
3) recognize that no human can (or should) compete with bots when it comes to editing Wikipedia,
let's just delete the page.
As mentioned above, I do appreciate our thoughtful dialog.
Steve
Slshafer (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sometimes my memory is that short (I'm so preoccupied with my trip to Mars), but in this instance I thought you were talking of something that happened well before the most recent issue. BTW, secondary sources are not my preference; they are Wikipedia's.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My initial reaction is to Redirect to Anesthesia & Analgesia, since Shafer is the editor. I think this article can be deleted (by redirecting), with any relevant text about Shafer's career as editor merged into the Anesthesia & Analgesia article. The subject wishes deletion, and in such cases we weigh the sources and see if the person is borderline notable, which is what Shafer's biography appears to be. If Shafer was strongly notable then I would have argued to keep the biography. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent commentary has shifted my viewpoint to Keep per PROF. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As editor-in-chief of a notable journal, Shafer likely passes WP:PROF. However, I concur with his WP:UNDUE concerns: there is too much focus on his expert testimony and not enough on his academic accomplishments. This needs to be fixed if the article is to be kept. If someone is willing to take the article in hand and bring it up to shape before the AfD closes, it's possible it can be saved. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Someone"? You're an experienced editor and a professor. Who better than you? :-) Part of the problem is, based on the number of page watchers, not too many editors are interested in the article (sorry, Steve).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no particular expertise in medical biography, and my time is not unlimited. But I did a little work on it this evening. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C8. I don't see that the article has any content that violates WP:BLP , but see Eppstein above about WP:UNDUE. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep after Xxanthippe's improvements (reducing the expert witness content to a single sentence about a notable trial). As she says, he clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 as well as (per my earlier comment) #C8, and the lifetime achievement award of the International Society of Anaesthetic Pharmacology is probably also good enough for #C2. I'd be willing to let the subject's preferences take priority in borderline cases, but the citations are too high for this one to be borderline. I've watchlisted it, so if the subject has concerns that can be handled by editing rather than deletion, we can discuss them on the article talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides being the EIC of a well-established journal, the Web of Science lists more than 200 papers, cited over 7000 (!) times with an h-index of 42. I dare say that this is even above the mean for full professors at Stanford, let alone lesser institutions. I'm sorry that Shafer felt obliged to take this article to AfD in order for it to be cleaned up and become an acceptable bio. I hope that the recent edits by Xxanthippe and David satisfy him and in that case to close this AfD as a WP:SNOW keep. I'll keep the article watchlisted for a while, an extra pair of eyes can never hurt. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As editor of the major journal in the field, Shafer is notable beyond question. This is not a borderline situation. The other matters seem to have been dealt with. I hope the subject will now withdraw the request for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xxanthippe. Note also that the reasons given for deletion ("I have no need for a Wikipedia page", and related statements) don't have any basis in Wikipedia policy and should be disregarded. Pages don't exist to meet the needs of their subjects. Saying that people can find information about Shafer elsewhere is equivalent to saying that Wikipedia is useless, an opinion the nominator is free to hold but isn't likely to find a welcome reception here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think notability is now established. However, I do agree entirely with the WP:UNDUE concerns raised above, and this article will need to be carefully watched to make sure it does not become a coatrack or otherwise defamatory. I've added it to my watchlist, for whatever this is worth. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Bowman[edit]

Colin Bowman (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 doesn't have any importance for the reader. No sources have been sited, no structure of the article. NovaSkola (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAE Magazine[edit]

FAE Magazine (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)

Article about a "niche" magazine created in 2007. 'Niche' seems to be a euphemism for 'little-known'. Therefore I think it is highly likely it fails WP:GNG notability criteria. I can't see any reliable secondary coverage about "FAE Magazine" or "Faeries and Enchantment". Sionk (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- I am not quite clear whehter this is about art or white magic. However without evidence of importance or a large circulation I take it to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this newsletter is not notable, but a former fanzine for LGBT people might have been. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Original PROD's reasoning is upheld. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Starr[edit]

Arne Starr (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)
  • On June 27th, this article was proposed for deletion with the rationale:
  • Notability, very poorly written, advertisement for someone who appears to be, primarily, a film extra.
  • The article was dePRODed with the rationale:
  • this is someone who worked in professional publications which were widely distributed. Some pinheads assertion that this is just an "ad" for the subject merely reveals their ignorance on this person.
  • The article was de rePRODed without comment and I proceeded to delete it as an expired PROD without noticing it had been contested; this has been brought to my attention on my user talk page by the article's creator & subject, and I've agreed to undelete it & send to AfD for further review; I consider myself neutral on the topic. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR, and I don't consider being an inker sufficiently notable either. There's a two-part interview for startrek.com[6][7] and a "whatever happened to ...?" bit[8], but that's not enough IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical model[edit]

Medical model (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)

Conscientious editors tagged this article for cleanup almost six (6) years ago, yet the problems remain. Editors who have posted comments on the Talk page describe many of the problems. A quick summary: The article is rife with bias, misinformation, undue emphasis, errors, poor organization, and a paucity of references to support its editorial comments. At best, visitors seeking information on the medical model leave befuddled rather than enlightened. At worst, they depart the page armed with fallacious 'facts' and biased beliefs. Mark D Worthen PsyD 21:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the comments on the talk page describe the article as poor but acknowledge that it does represent a view of psychiatry that is historically notable. It should be improved not deleted. Lumos3 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what y'all are saying and I appreciate the feedback from more experienced editors. I'll add this article to my "to do" list. :o) Mark D Worthen PsyD 02:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important topic; further develop, per comments above. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether to redirect can be decided through the editorial process.  Sandstein  11:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liliom (1919 film)[edit]

Liliom (1919 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)

This film was started, and then stopped, so there is nothing to say about it. No WP:GNG. I think this should redirect to Liliom#Film adaptations, where the info is already there. Beerest 2 talk 20:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom, either to the suggestion above, or to Michael Curtiz filmography. Which do you think is best and I'll be bold and do it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The concept of the redirect is fine, but this is not a logical search term. There is already a piece on the (actually completed) 1934 film by the same name. This is a minor incident in the biography of the director and does not seem to be the object of sufficient sourcing to support a free-standing article, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's not a logical search term, but it is a possible search term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Discovery Communications. —Darkwind (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis[edit]

Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis (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. First AfD was held in 2010 practically just after it happened. Now, we can see there is no impact. All refs are from September 2010. Beerest 2 talk 20:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya Film Festival[edit]

Chechnya Film Festival (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 couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. However, hopefully someone will prove me wrong, especially as it is hard to source articles on a different culture and in a different language. Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trefor Munn-Venn[edit]

Trefor Munn-Venn (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 autobiography of a seemingly non-notable person. The subject has authored a number of publications, and it seems his work has been cited in a few, but I am unable to find any in depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO notability. - MrX 20:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrX. Thank you for the recent messages as I'm continuing to learn how to use Wikipedia most effectively and to contribute to the overall body here. Please believe me when I say that this is not intended as a frivolous vanity page or promotional autobiography. The subject is notable for a number of reasons:

  • Having launched the program area at the largest think tank in Canada and sixth largest in North America (by operating budget)
  • Being published through the extensive peer-review program of The Conference Board of Canada. Publications from the Conference Board are known to be evidence-based, rigorously structured, and highly valued. The reports are not made freely available and so they are not typically sourced as frequently as standard academic publications
  • Being repeatedly asked to present the research findings at some of the largest and most influential international organizations
  • Winning a Webby Award (in the category of Activism in the very first year that category was introduced) which is an achievement that only a handful of Canadians can claim

While it cannot reasonably be mentioned at this time, a 200+ page book will also be published in the fall of 2014. TreforMV (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no coverage in reliable third-party source. Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG.  Tigerboy1966  22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cheffins[edit]

Simon Cheffins (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)

Notability issue noted in 2008 but not followed up on. Of the three musical groups listed, "Blood Lake" does not have an article here (the link is to a movie of the same name); I think Crash Worship has notability issues of its own, and while Extra Action Marching Band appears to be notable, it is also a large-membership-group that doesn't, in my opinion, automatically confer notability on all of its members. Of course, this is not an area of my expertise. Delete, but I can be persuaded otherwise. --Nlu (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While we have articles on two of his bands the article as is seems the most appropriate landing point for our readers should they search for him. There are several sources that could be used to improve the article, e.g. SF Weekly, Simon T. Jones' book The Tribes of Burning Man, San Francisco Bay Guardian, SPIN, David Keenan's book England's Hidden Reverse, and Eric Davis's book Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica, which confirm details of the bands he has been in and also his work as an artist. --Michig (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be a member of various notable musical groups, and coverage provided by User:Michig above indicates that they are likely to meet criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Wasserman[edit]

Tony Wasserman (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)

Is this entrepreneur/professor notable enough? I don't see it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Surprisingly few cites on GS but university web site claims he is is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. His ACM and IEEE Fellow awards appear to both be for commercial rather than academic accomplishments, so I'm not sure whether they should really count for WP:PROF, but they're a high enough level recognition of the subject that I think we should keep his article regardless. And he has five publications with 100+ citations each in Google scholar, so I think he does also pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 as well as IEEE fellow. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein. Appears notable as an academic. --Michig (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. KTC (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Veley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charles Veley (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)

Had been discussed twice before. It was deleted in 2005, but then recreated in 2006 and went through years with relatively few edits (less than 100), then renominated for deletion in June 2013, leading to a no consensus discussion. I believe it should be deleted — it relies on the subject's own Web site which is subscription-based, suggesting commercial linkage, and in any case, while there was some mainstream coverage, the coverage is minimal, and none of the mainstream articles confirms the subject's claim to be the most-travelled man. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. Sources include:
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 12:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources listed above demonstrate that notability should not be judged solely by looking at a Wikipedia article. Clearly satisfies the GNG. --Michig (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Doug Stanhope. KTC (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanhope defense[edit]

Stanhope defense (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 subject of this article is a comedian's joke; the article presents it as "an innovative legal defense". The article just extends this joke; it's a mock article. Even if the article were to document the joke, it looks like it's just not that notable. Coverage within the comedian's entry would suffice if anything is needed.

That's how it strikes me--I don't have a lot of experience with deletion and its policies. Thanks. Ale And Quail (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete and salt by me. I've speedied this as not only a promo (WP:G11) but also as a page created by a sockpuppet of User:AmericanTruthSeeker. I've also salted the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bent and Broken Truth[edit]

The Bent and Broken Truth (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 link that mentions "The Bent and Broken Truth" is simply a listing with the synopsis provided by the publisher (fails WP:RS); none of the other sources actually mention the subject book. The article is simply a coat-rack to advertise the book and to provide a cover to making BLP attacks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment: See also prior edits by AmericanTruthSeeker (talk · contribs) and the now deleted article at The Bent and Broken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like advertising spam to me. --gilgongo (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A non-notable self published book. There are BLP concerns as well. This book is part of a virulent online hate campaign directed at Ping Fu. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Achraf Amiri[edit]

Achraf Amiri (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 artists. A fashion illustrator whose works have been published, but about whom no significant reliable sources can be found. Cited sources are either blogs or other unreliable sources, or bare mentions in passing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He's just an ordinary person fulfilling the expectations of his job. No discernable reason why this should be noteworthy at all. --gilgongo (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Sources which confirm he is an illustrator (his job) do not support notability.Flat Out let's discuss it 01:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/comment - I'm going to consider this a bit more carefully. The guy is incredibly talented and does seem to be drawing attention. Is it WP:TOOSOON? Perhaps. But he has contributed to a large number of significant publications. He has been interviewed for the Swell City Guide in 2012, and for 1883magazine - both independent publications answering to editorial control. There's an "article on his art" in the April-May 2011 edition of Auxillary magazine - I took a look at the PDF file and it's quite substantial, covering four pages. He's also worked with a number of high profile people - yes, not enough in itself to make him notable, but it is enough to have brought about at least three decent interviews and articles specifically about him, in addition to the attention of a great many non-notable sources. I also dug a bit deeper and found a six-page spread from page 66 of issue 54 of Notion Magazine - he's not just provided illustrations, he's collaborated with an editorial team and stylists to interlace the illustrations with photographs, and they chose to use the accompanying text to cover his work, who he is, and what he does. The (tough to navigate) digital copy of said magazine is here - I winced when I saw the text itself as it's not well edited, but it still seems a well-established publication - and not every illustrator gets editorial commentary on them or whole spreads dedicated to their work. I suspect there's quite a lot more coverage out there, too. Mabalu (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given that you state yes, not enough in itself to make him notable, but it is enough to have brought about at least three decent interviews and articles specifically about him, in addition to the attention of a great many non-notable sources and agree that it is probably WP:TOOSOON I wonder why you voted to keep?Flat Out let's discuss it 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response My original post was stream-of-consciousness as I searched for sources. When I said "Too soon?" that was EARLY on in the paragraph, a rhetorical question I then went on to try and answer by trying to find reliable sources. By the end of the paragraph, I had found enough material to make me feel secure in voting Keep, so I added that in at the beginning and trusted that my commentary would show the process of my search and the progress of my thinking from "Is it too soon?" to "Hmm, this person might be notable" and eventually, "Yes, I think he is notable." You took a quote out of context: "yes, not enough in itself to make him notable" - which refers to the fact that simply working alongside notable people does not confer notability. The point, however, is that Amiri's work has been singled out specifically for notice and has been the subject of editorial commentary in more than one publication. Editors have made a point to insist that we know about this illustrator and what he's doing. Finding good source material was tricky due to the "great many non-notable sources" - self-published material, personal blogs/reblogs, etc - that clogged the searches, but it exists, and covers a period of a few years, which I feel is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mabalu (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Digital currency exchanger, delete the other two. —Darkwind (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency[edit]

Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency (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)

With utmost respect to the article creator, seeing as he has put a great deal of time and energy into making and improving upon articles regarding, I'm nominating this list along with several others (one as old as 2005) due to the lack of established notability and arguably functioning like a guide.

Here are the two other articles:

Digital currency exchanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [citation needed] 16:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These comparison lists are almost always WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and most should be deleted. Pburka (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note:. My !vote applies only to the comparison articles. Pburka (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:HOWTO as a how-to-compare type of essay. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Digital currency exchanger and Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies. Why you weasel these articles here? They're not written like a guide and aren't complexity unsourced, just give them time to expand. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency. Based on WP:G11 service promotion, and that alone is the reason for my opinion. However, I would add that neither of the two services being compared are notable, and the structure of the article makes it inherently dependent on original research (WP:OR). The topic should be covered without mentioning specific services, or perhaps mentioning services if a reliable source (e.g. Consumer Reports magazine)) covered a similar topic. --Agyle (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Digital currency exchanger. This is a pretty established type of business and is a valid topic for an article. While the article currently has many problems, it can be improved. There are numerous reliable sources with information on the topic. --Agyle (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the deletion process being used here is messed up; shouldn't each article have its own discussion, with a discussion page title corresponding to the title of the article? It's not clear when people simply say "delete" which article or articles they're talking about. --Agyle (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully Agree , this mess appears on many deletion requests on Wikipedia, it's time to stop it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, I am having a hard time parsing through this discussion. Breadblade (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Digital currency exchanger and Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comparison of anonymous exchangers of digital currency. This one seems pretty obvious. The page is a comparison of features of two companies, neither one of which is notable. I've removed the link to that page from the Bitcoin "See Also". Chris Arnesen
  • Merge Comparison_of_anonymous_cryptocurrencies into List_of_cryptocurrencies. There's just not enough cryptocurrencies to require two separate list articles.Chris Arnesen 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Digital_currency_exchanger for the reasons that Agyle mentions above. We can make it better. Chris Arnesen 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Benboy00, with respect, I've undone your edit of attempting to sort comments into lists. It's not unusual to nominate multiple articles in an AfD and the process was followed correctly here. Most editors who have commented here have explained which articles they support or don't and have given reasons to back up their particular argument, which honestly is better than most AfDs. Anyway the mess is for the closing admin to figure out, and I don't think that sorting comments under sub-headings is going to help; actually it stunts the discussion because most people who watch AfD don't expect there to be subheadings like this. If anyone disagrees with me I won't take offense if you revert this edit, but please include my comments here and any subsequent comments if you do. Ivanvector (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Digital currency exchanger. Checkingfax (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete of Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies. Based on WP:G11 service promotion. --Agyle (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete comparisons, keep exchanger article. One 'comparison' article reads like a how-to on dated or defunct curriences, the other (comparison of anonymous crytpocurrencies) has been mostly blanked, lacks significant sourcing and still seems to have POV issues in spite of that. The article about exchangers doesn't fit in with the other two. It seems to be well-fleshed out and well-sourced. Breadblade (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capture the Crown[edit]

Capture the Crown (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:BAND almost all sources are primary . LibStar (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the ELs is a link to their Allmusic entry: they have a bio by Timothy Monger: which describes the group headlining a tour of the US; at awards their debut album, 'Til Death, appears on three component charts for Billboard; although the article is poorly written/referenced, the band is notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have now moved the Allmusic refs into main text to support their biography, and to support the charting.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep additional references added which now establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Hype All Night[edit]

All Hype All Night (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 album hasn't even been released. Created by a single purpose editor who has only edited about this band. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think we can draw the line at an article about something that hasn't even happened yet. --gilgongo (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not released, not notable. Some reasonable doubt exists whether it will be released with the act dropped by their major label (October 2013) and a founding member leaving (December 2013).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - relevant info on this EP is already mentioned within the band's page; I'm not finding significant coverage to warrant a separate article for this (future?) release.  Gong show 23:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Needs work, but consensus is to keep.Mojo Hand (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Roxxi[edit]

DJ Roxxi (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)

Edited mostly by single-purpose accounts with an apparent conflict of interest. No references to establish notability. Keφr 14:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep COI issues can be fixed by editing. There's photos of newspaper/magazine articles about her on her website [1], I haven't traced them all but it suggests the coverage is out there if someone looks for it. The papers look like they count as reliable sources as do some of the magazines e.g. cosmopolitan. Won a global DJ award in 2012 (Global Spin Award). I don't know where to find South African music charts but I'd be surprised if she hasn't charted at least on a genre specific chart per criteria 4 in WP:BAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acb314 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 02:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra Verma[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gajendra Verma (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)

Sole possible claim to notability appears to be a single incident with minor coverage. Does not demonstrably meet any other notability criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. Article was previously subject to an AfD that concluded with a "soft delete". - Vianello (Talk) 11:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No way is this person notable. andy (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To those commenting about the notability, have a look: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] which fits WP:MUSBIO. Mr RD (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WITHDRAWN AND REDIRECTED TO EXISTING ARTICLE. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 roger federer tennis season[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is not an encyclopedic entry, no lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude City[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. A mention in a Facebook post. No significant coverage. No reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS for unreleased albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - no significant coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satan's Angel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Satan's Angel (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)

Utterly nonencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: subject clearly passes WP:GNG as many reliable sources included in the article indicate. I'm not sure why nom thinks this is unencyclopedic, but just in case, I'll point out that Wikipedia is not censored. Ivanvector (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Censorship isn't the issue here. It's "in what conceivable way does this article add to Wikipedia's usefulness as an encyclopedia?" And I can't think of a single redeeming quality for this article. --Nlu (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for putting words in your mouth. I see it as a decent (but not great, admittedly) article about a performer with notability demonstrated by reliable sources. Passes GNG, doesn't offend WP:BLP, isn't skewed nor overtly promotional. Are you suggesting it's useless? Could you elaborate? It could be quite useful to someone researching the American burlesque industry, for example, as she's a notable performer in it. I don't understand your objection to it, I guess. Ivanvector (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of one of those, "I don't know how to say it, but I know it when I see it" situations. Reading the article made me go, "OK, so she's a burlesque performer who received some coverage and was considered by some to be a pioneer, and ...?" There is no indication here that she made any kind of lasting impact, and there is no indication here that, to be brutally honest, that she was anything but a visual plaything. She's more notable than the usual stripper, and that's it; there's utterly no way that this article adds any value to human learning. --Nlu (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 02:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Studio One (nightclub)[edit]

Studio One (nightclub) (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)

West Hollywood nightclub that apparently has had several celebrities perform and even on the board of directors and I tried to improve the article as much I as I could. However, the issue is that some of the references say one thing than the other so some things aren't very clear. For one thing, one link said Frank Sinatra held a stake in the nightclub but the other says (and cites a 1967 LA Times article that I can't seem to find) that he was not. In other words, this nightclub seems to have gotten a lot of attention in its day but it'd probably be better as a shorter mention somewhere else. After performing numerous searches, this is the bulk of what I found, 1, 2 (basically the same article, reprint) and 3 (all three prove something but are not very promising). Additionally, it seems the club has declined in the past twenty years so that's likely to blame for lack of good attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a well known venue with a very long and notable history. I suggest starting with a search on the Books link at the top of this page and doing a "studio one" "scott forbes" search. I get several dozen book/magazine hits, and these only turn up where the two phrases intersect so there are many more where the phrases are on different pages. It may take time but the sources are there. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found a couple of acceptable ones but the other results (in that search of Studio One Scott Forbes" found mostly minor mentions, unavailable previews or nothing that seemed appropriate) and I even performed a search for "Studio One Scott Forbes Billboard" and "Studio One Scott Forbes The Advocate". I already had the "Gay L.A.: A History of..." included and it actually had some very good information but I see some problems there such as this where it mentions ""featured a deejay that a 1974 Billboard magazine number one in Los Angeles", "featured on national television" (is not as significant sometimes as it could be in passing) and "dubbed by many newspapers and magazines as one of the most discos in the country" (however I can't find anything exact). It seems Forbes participated in several political and LGBT organizations but that's probably more for him and (from the Google Books link again, "disco king by the press" but no exact source). One Billboard article and the Gay L.A. book mentions they would have thousands of guests in one night though what popular club doesn't? The Gay L.A. seems to have information on this subject starting somewhere about pages 234/235 until 239 but I've seen everything and added what I thought was noteworthy. As I mentioned, I believe there is some good information on this club and it likely helps it was off Santa Monica Blvd in Los Angeles but there does seem to be some dark ambiguous spots (such as the Tommy film party). Another note is that the wehoville.com and curbed.com have some good information but there does seem to be some contradiction there (so it makes me question the credibility on some of the other information in that said link). I suppose if it comes down to it, I'll be open to keeping the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use your best judgement and keep digging. Part of the challenge is to guess who would have written anything at the time. It might make sense to drop off Forbes' name and try with some of the music acts that play there. Then each can be verified themselves. There's also ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives that very likely has some material on the place but I don't know what may be available online. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice amount of discussion in appropriate references. — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grameen Social Business Model[edit]

Grameen Social Business Model (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 about a book. While the topics covered in the book are notable. It does not appear that this book is. There are existing articles on Muhammad Yunus, Microcredit, Social business and the Social business model. Those articles are where the information and citations that are currently in this article belong. This book fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). At the best it has had the routine coverage of an average non-fiction book. There is nothing outstanding about this book, no matter how worthy the topics covered. Notability is not transferred. At the time this Afd was proposed, this article was, understandably, an orphan. The citations, for the most part are not about the book; when they are, they are promotional, made in passing, not reliable, or even circular like the one to cyclopaedia.net a Wikipedia mirror. Delete as non-notable. --Bejnar (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been noticed at the WikiProject Books talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Wong qiiang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 

  • this article should not be deleted. my first reaction to this AfD template was "Vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Doppler (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 January 2014‎
  • requesting for undeletion of this article because this book gained international recognition and use many reliable sources e.g., Barnes and Nobel, Amazon, Google-book, Times of India. So remove the above Afd tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pronobnath (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 January 2014‎
  • Don't delete it the article satisfy encyclopedic standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asumiko Nakamura (talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Requests for undeletion. It is apparent that some people want to delete this article because of conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhang junn (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 January 2014‎
!votes struck out due to blocked sockpuppet. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage about this book in independent reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the page appears to be a precis of the book rather than an aarticle about it. The citations given are for the arguments/persons covered in it rather than for the book itself. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't see how it meets WP:NBOOKS. coverage merely confirms the book exists. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progoti Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited[edit]

Progoti Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as far as it is readable, it is plain advertising The Banner talk 03:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest delete, as although being the first land development bank in the country is some kind of claim to notability, that claim is not independently sourced. The other sources for the article are generic statutes and co-op registrations, which don't speak to notability, nor make it practical to write a neutral article. It was founded as recently as 2009. Perhaps if we wait a few years there will be reliable sources in English or Bengali. Sadly, as far as I can tell from Google Translate, the sources in the article at Bengali Wikipedia are similarly weak. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Martin[edit]

Marina Martin (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 significant notability . I would have nominated as A7, except it is possible for a good faith contributor to have the opinion that Presidential Innovation Fellow is significant. At the moment, very feww of the people listed there have articles. It seems to be essentially an early career award that does not indicate more than "possibly might be notable some day". DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indeed I do not see any notability beyond being a Presidential Innovation Fellow, and I do not think that Presidential Innovation Fellows are notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Scordamaglia[edit]

Jenny Scordamaglia (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 blogger and actress. Fails all relevant notability categories. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability, just another one of tens of thousands of bloggers, nothing notable. Outside coverage seems incidental at best. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Piece written by an account in her company's name. Evident COI if not outright autobio. -- Alexf(talk) 11:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any evidence that this account is operating "in her company's name." If you see such evidence, consider that the editor in question may need to be warned or, if previously warned, sanctioned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posts are by her company: Miami TV. See here. -- Alexf(talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood you. I falsely assumed that you were referring to the article's creator. Please accept my apologies for not spotting the obvious. About half of what is there now was NOT written by the "Miamitv" account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf 635[edit]

Wolf 635 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, and no significant coverage in studies, as required. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: I do find a few hits on "HD 154363", although those are mainly about the use of the primary as a reference star. Praemonitus (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noxilo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Noxilo (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)

Noxilo is a NN conlang has no relevant Ghits outside of what I assume is the creator's website and a post on a conlanging forum. It's been around for six years without even an attempt to establish notability. Hermione is a dude (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I vaguely recall having heard somewhere that Noxilo is or was quite a hit in Japan, but you're right, Google doesn't turn up anything that points at notability, whether you search for "Noxilo" or for "ノシロ語", and neither does the article itself. It mentions a book, but no title and no other references. All I've found is the author's website and a few blog posts. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 18:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. This conlang has been referred in a comparatively authoritive journal "Monthly Language"(Nov. 2006)by Taishukan shoten(「人工言語ミニ事典 ノシロ語（水田扇太郎）」 『月刊言語』2006年11月号（特集 人工言語の世界 -- ことばを創るとはどういうことか）所収、大修館書店)--山田拙者 (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's good, but one single reference is still not enough. One or two more, and I'd be inclined to change my vote. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 20:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a different class. Hermione is a dude (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Would need multiple references independent of the creator. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to SuperTux. Clear consensus that this topic is not notable on its own, but redirects are very cheap. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseman the Game[edit]

Cheeseman the Game (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)

Notability not established, no reliable sources given. Article was already deleted once in WP:PROD. -- intgr [talk] 12:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This article is worded too kindly about the game itself. I can't see why the game is important, it belongs on a forum spam thread. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks spammy and non-notable to boot. Peridon (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as a spinoff(?) of SuperTux. Ivanvector (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above, per articles and independent reviews: [18][19] [20] [21] There are others, and many video reviews which I have not posted here. After removing the spammy bits from the article not enough will be left to keep a separate article, so merge into SuperTux. Ivanvector (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only available sources seem to be minor, closely affiliated sources. Fails WP:GNG notability. - MrX 02:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Variations of basketball#Lightning. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout (game)[edit]

Knockout (game) (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)

Article has no references. It describes a game that most definitely exists but doesn't seem to be of note. There is a claim that a 667-person game will be put in the Guinness Book of World Records but there is no source for that claim. Searches only show that the school did this, but there is no proof that they were accepted into the record books. This should likely be merged to Variations of basketball if not deleted outright. —Ryulong (琉竜) 20:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:35, 7 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Redirecting this back to Variations of basketball may be fine, but it should be noted that bunches and bunches of articles exist, mainly in local media and college papers, about various efforts to set the world record for largest knockout game. E.g. [22][23][24][25][26][27]. (Try a Google search for <knockout basketball Guinness> to see many more examples.) These articles are all fairly brief but the sheer mass of them suggests there's something notable about the game, in the aggregate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. At this time there is no firm consensus to delete this article, this close does not prejudice against a future nomination if warranted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Newland[edit]

Guy Newland (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)

Nom on behalf of an IP, who wrote on WT:AFD: " Reason is failure to show notability for an academic." This is merely procedureal on my part and should not be construed as an opinion one way or the other. DES (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to look into this matter. DES (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: WP:PROF says "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat)". In this case, Worldcat shows, among other listings:
    • Appearance and reality : the two truths -- held in 125 libs, many are major University libraries;
    • The two truths in the Mādhyamika philosophy -- held in 68 libs, including major University libraries;
    • From here to enlightenment -- held in 232 libraries;
    • Introduction to emptiness -- held in 3 libraries;
    • Changing minds : contributions to the study of Buddhism and Tibet -- held in 131 libraries, many of them university libraries;
    • Compassion : a Tibetan analysis -- held in 6 libraries;
    • The great treatise on the stages of the path to enlightenment -- held in 227 libraries;
This is only a partial list, a sampling. In addition, several of these are listed in translation to other languages, with additional holdings of the translated editions. Moreover, in some cases there are multiple records where different libraries entered the same work into Worldcat with slightly different formatting or detail, these will increase the counts above. DES (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A GS h-index of around 6 is a bit below the borderline for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by uninvolved admin: DES, I would like if you would offer your personal opinion on if this BLP is notable or not... as it seems we're not going to get much further consensus gathering at this point. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Coffee, I had planned to do some more searching, and never got to it. My view, given what I did discover, is that this person is notable, but only marginally. The article was not promotional, and might be useful for people interested in this specific field of study, and IMO does no harm. DES (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cryptocurrency#Notable cryptocurrencies. This is a compromise decision made to meet the valid concerns and suggestions in both the keep and delete votes. Many of those who called for keeping the list as a separate article also suggested that several of the non-notable entries on the list ought to be removed. However, there seems to be a reasonable consensus that most of the cryptocurrencies in the list are too obscure for any coverage, and since removing them from the list would make the article a rather short one, so short in fact that the need for a separate WP:SUBARTICLE becomes less obvious. As the delete voters pointed out, the Cryptocurrency article already has a list on the most notable cryptocurrencies, and some who bolded the "delete" part of the vote have explicitly endorsed redirecting the page. The title "List of cryptocurrencies" is a plausible redirect. Since there may be parts of the article worth merging, I am keeping the article history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cryptocurrencies[edit]

List of cryptocurrencies (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)

A controversial list of a bunch of currencies in which the majority of are redlinks to non-existant articles. Little to no sources outside of forum posts and exchange sites. Would not be opposed to a merging with Cryptocurrency. Currently neutral. [citation needed] 01:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at current state -- per WP:CSC -- Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 02:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the article is changed back to only listing cryptocurrencies with articles, as the content is in Cryptocurrency. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 02:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Cryptocurrency article currently contains a "Notable cryptocurrencies" subsection, and is of readable length. As wikipedia is not a directory or for promotion, non-notable currencies (those not meeting WP:GNG) have no place in any article, and this article is redundant.Dialectric (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator has not added a deletion notice to the page itself. Pburka (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page was/is protected, so the nominator could not add the template. A request to add was posted to the talk page, and an admin has since added the template.Dialectric (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article not needed if the list is already in the main article. Unnotable things should not be listed. Borock (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So then trim it, don't delete it. Who knows, in a years time there will be a thousand different cryptocurrencies, so change it so that the list contains the ten biggest ones with reliable sources. The hasty deletion seems very blunt. 83.109.2.131 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete - Already tried trimming it down to the ones with reasonable sources, which resulted in roughly the same list as the one in the cryptocurrency article. This did not stop SPA users from continually spamming the list with the unnotable ones. Merging the few missing notable entries (Dogecoin, Primecoin) to cryptocurrency seems to be the best option. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But delete non-notable ones (all currencies below 1 million market capitalization need to go).' — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia's point of view market cap is not an indicator of notability. It also cannot be determined without reliable sources and, for most cryptocurrencies, seems to be extremely volatile. Smite-Meister (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just clean all the doubtful and spammy ones. YubbaDoo (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a wikipedia policy based reason for your argument? As it is, it looks like WP:JUSTAVOTE Dialectric (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is definitely notable, and I don't have anything against a list of cryptocurrencies by itself. However, a large number of the listed cryptocurrencies are temporary fads with little or no significance or coverage, not warranting coverage on Wikipedia. The currencies worth listing are few and are adequately listed in Cryptocurrency, where I think the list should stay (and so delete the list to avoid forking). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Redirect). The list of notable currencies can be (and already is) included in digital currency and cryptocurrency. This list is an unnecessary WP:SPLIT that in reality only serves to host non-notable currencies and ends up being promotional. There are not enough items to warrant a split at this point. Trimming the list off non-notable entries just leaves the same content as already in parent articles. I don't believe simply being a member of the group (WP:CSC#3) is a valid criteria for this list, as the list is ultimately indiscriminate. There are sources like [28], but they are similarly endless lists arranged by criteria that is not relevant to GNG. When individual currencies become notable, we can include then, not before. When the list becomes too large for the main article(s), we can split it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge A major problem is that people keep adding coins because they are listed in coinmarketcap.com, which is not a suitable source. A lot of coins have interesting features, but they have to have reputable sources. Few coins do actually have reputable sources. It is frustrating to see people constantly add coins based on something like coinmarketcap.com or its own website, or using Wikipedia for promotion. Until people get the !#@$ message, I cannot vote for keep. Eventually this article will have its own page, but there's the guideline, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm not opposed to redirecting/merging; less maintenance and cryptocurrency does cover this topic since the list is short. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cryptocurrency#Notable_cryptocurrencies. That article is not so large that it can't have a short list inside it, which will omit all the sundry minor cryptocurrencies. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, possibly rename. Too extensive to merge into cryptocurrency (which should be about the technical concept) even after cleaning up cruft. The table in cryptocurrency should be removed, replaced with a text description mentioning the most prominent examples (that mostly means Bitcoin), and a "see also" to the "list" page. I found the article/list while looking for altcoin which turns out to be a redlink at the moment. That might be a more suitable move/merge target than cryptocurrency if some text is added.

    The proliferation of altcoins is a notable phenomenon[29] which economist Tyler Cowan claims will have economic repercussions for the larger ones.[30] Notability should of course be determined by review of sources (like for anything else), not by "market cap", as a lot of interesting concepts that have been documented in the literature are worth including, even if they didn't get any traction financially. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is a table of 7 entries "too extensive"? Smite-Meister (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the big table of 50 or so in the "list" article is too extensive to include in the main cryptocurrency article. That article should be expanded a lot, and while the current 50-ish in the list page can possibly be pared down temporarily, it will keep expanding as more of these coins appear and gain notability. You can even generate your own with a web app. If the list page is merged to cryptocurrency it will probably have to be split out again before long. Type "Coinye West" (currently missing from the big list) into a search engine, and weep. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The big table of 50 or so unnotable, unsourced "currencies" should not exist on Wikipedia in the first place. Right now just the 7 cryptocurrencies I mentioned above have demonstrably both notability and sources, some of them only barely. If you can provide sufficient sources for Coinye I guess that would make it eight. Smite-Meister (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just created Coinye West two days ago, as a matter of fact. There's also a steaming pile of controversy with the rapper launching cease and desist letters, so I'm hopeful that if it even goes over to AfD, it will survive the process just like Dogecoin. However, this list fails criteria one and two of WP:CSC. If you really want to think about it, the list is basically a de facto WP:PROMO violation as the majority of these coins have no articles and are simply added on to by SPAs. Citation Needed | Talk 20:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have made the same argument as User:Surfer43, also without elaborating. As point 1 and 2 of CSC do not apply here, it seems you are referencing 3, which is defined as "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." No compelling argument has been made for why otherwise non-notable currencies belong on wikipedia, and it is unclear how this article could ever be a 'complete list' of all cryptocurrencies.Dialectric (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there seem to be 8 notable or barely notable entries. Smite-Meister (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete. The Cryptocurrency article already has a list of notable cryptocurrencies. Notable cryptocurrencies are the only ones that should be listed anywhere in wikipedia. We don't need a separate article that lists (in addition to the list in Cryptocurrency) both "major" (whatever that means) and "all" cryptocurrencies. Let's maintain a single list of notable cryptocurrencies as a section of Cryptocurrency. At some point in the future, if that list becomes too long, we can split it off as a separate article. For the time being, there are too few notable ones to require a separate article, much less three separate lists (four if you include Comparison of anonymous cryptocurrencies). Chris Arnesen 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted, Cryptocurrency covers notable cryptocurrencies. A list of all cryptocurrencies, including non-notable entries, becomes promotional and is not appropriate for coverage. I would suggest merging, but there doesn't seem to be any reliably-sourced content that would be of use. --Agyle (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio Municipal 22 de Junho[edit]

Estádio Municipal 22 de Junho (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)

After a good faith search, failed to find any references that were capable of satisfying WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. While I note it was suggested on the PROD there were Portugese news sources, the one I located was a mention only after translation. ManicSpider (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment On the reference that has now been added, I would like to point out that it does not meet WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV. -ManicSpider (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I PRODed the article and I have not been able to establish its notability. Andrew327 11:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 11:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - used in a WP:FPL-compliant league for several seasons, that's enough for notability as per general practise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a redirect to F.C. Famalicão (the main team that plays there) would be more sensible than deletion. I can't find much coverage beyond basic capacity/year of building info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it may not be policy, but it is certainly backed up by past AFDs and simple COMMONSENSE - a top-level stadium is notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to F.C. Famalicão, without prejudice against re-creation when sources become available. A football stadium used for a decent length of time in a top-level league will probably have had enough coverage for someone with access to Portuguese historical newspapers or relevant books to build a useful article. But without any evidence of that coverage, we can't make a useful article on the topic. And as there's a clearly sensible place to keep the existing information until someone with such access to sources does feel like making a useful article, the one-and-a-half lines we do have would be better kept with the football club.

    Incidentally, re ManicSpider's comment, the reference added to the article obviously isn't SIGCOV, but it is RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know how the stadium of a team that has played meany seasons in the top level of Portugese football isn't notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 06:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8888-8888[edit]

8888-8888 (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 the long-term interest by media required by WP:EVENT. I was about to merge it into Sichuan Airlines when I figured it was just too trivial. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing of particular value to merge. The numbers article already explains that the number is lucky and the claim that is the most expensive number in the world is not accurate. This is not a notable topic that could ever be made into a full-length, useful article. the statement about 8888-8888 at Numbers in Chinese culture#Eight has the ref because I just added it. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repurposing the material from this article at Numbers in Chinese culture#Eight without merging and giving attribution strikes me as borderline under Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia; it may or may not be strictly required under the guideline, but I don't see downside to formally acknowledging the merge, keeping the redirect (per WP:CHEAP) and preserving the attribution. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the content is so trivial that it might easily get deleted later per WP:TRIVIA, in which case we have a broken redirect. Also User:Swollib, who originally created the article, states on his user page that his contributions should be considered public domain, so there might not be a copyright problem at all. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What material needs to be copied from this article? Nothing has been merged. I modified the content of the numbers article based on the BBC article linked at the end of 8888-8888, not based on any of its content as written. Nothing has been copied or paraphrased except for the BBC world news article and that is duly cited. If someone wants to modify Sichuan Airlines I suggest they refer directly to the BBC world news article as well and cite the ref. There is no copyright problem because nothing has been copied and nothing needs to be copied. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not 8888-8888 redirects somewhere is a separate matter. This is a deletion discussion. Once the page is deleted anyone can create a redirect or not, or argue about where to. Since we're on the topic though, my opinion is that the redirect is totally not important, but I'll go with WP:CHEAP and support redirecting to either Sichuan Airlines or Numbers in Chinese culture#Eight. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The article's information is not relevant to the airline and therefore should just be outright deleted. 108.56.240.224 (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a documented fact about the airline why is it not relevant? Borock (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of some importance to the airline, but not worthy of having its own article. This little piece of information does not have enough of an impact to merit its own article.108.56.240.224 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia. Every single fact in the world does not need its own article. If you like mention it in the other articles suggested, but it's far from being encyclopedia worthy. Borock (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanene[edit]

Stanene (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)

Article is based on a single theory paper and an accompanying press release from a university (and several "news" blurbs based on the press release only). There's no evidence this material exists or can be made. Hundreds of other materials, some of which are known to exist, have also been predicted to be topological insulators. Too soon. a13ean (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator in case it was not clear from the above. a13ean (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Since this is indeed based on a single paper with a handful of citations (4 in GScholar), it could be treated per WP:EVENT and by that standard it hasn't proven notable since it's just too fresh. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The possibility seems notable (I came here looking for more info on stanene) and it's convenient to gather all info/speculation on stanene in one place rather than bury it in multiple other articles such as tin or topological insulators. The article will grow or wither as more info arrives. - Rod57 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete "May", "could, "would": these are the words of speculative research. Even if there were several papers I would call for deletion on this one. For a single paper: not a chance. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's more than the one paper, please list the others. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several secondary sources listed as refs and external links in the article. Secondary sources are what we prefer to use to establish notability. ~KvnG 22:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a reprint of the press release. So is this. This one is closely based on it, and doesn't add anything new. Same thing for this. The requirements for a secondary source state that "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." and in my reading at least, none of these qualify. a13ean (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added three new sources to end of the References section of the article. Please let us know whether these meet your standards for WP:SECONDARY coverage. ~KvnG 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The EE times article adds a bit of material, but it's clear that everything is closely based on the press release, as evidenced by the same quotes in every article. At any rate this is a moot point; we have a single theory paper showing calculations that if this material could be made, it might be a 2D TI. Again, too soon. a13ean (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that all of these secondary sources are covering a single primary source. That's not a valid reason to delete the article. To delete, we have to be convinced that the topic is not notable. I agree that it is to soon to start wiring things together with stanene. It may well never happen. But, it is being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources so it definitely deserves to be covered on WP. ~KvnG 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NYT just covered it, interviewing the lead researcher. It has a potential to affect electronics. It's growing in visibility. If something comes along to puncture the bubble, I might reverse my vote. Lfstevens (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary ~KvnG 21:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, but I'll make a redirect to Subtitle (captioning) in case someone comes across the term. No prejudice against re-creation if sources can be found. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubtitle[edit]

Dubtitle (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)

Neologism possibly created as a disguised promotional article and recently maintained by 50.14.3.215 (talk · contribs) whose edits may be PR and is maintaining other company or BLP articles - a number related to Michael Mic Neumann. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One or two issues on the last line of the article do not mean that the article is a promotional article and should be deleted to me the artical looks like a short well sourced article that needs a little work not somthing that needs to be deleted.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The word appears valid but not very commonly used, at least not in Google Books. However, the book Fight Choreography: The Art of Non-Verbal Dialogue devotes a half-page to explaining what "dubtitle" means. I don't think deletion is an option here, but I would not be unopposed to merging to subtitle (captioning) if there is not much more coverage about the word itself. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've removed the references to "Dubtitled" as a genre and "Dubtitled Entertainment" as a company, as these would need to be at their respective article titles. Inclusion here seems to be a backdoor attempt to circumvent notability criteria. So what's left seems to be a dubious WP:DICDEF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubtitled Entertainment. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that convinces me that when Squeezdot (talk · contribs) and Squeezedot (talk · contribs) were blocked 50.14.3.215 took over the Neumann PR work and is likely the same person. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see exactly one book on anime using/defining the term. If it catches on more it could be recreated. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NEO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence of notability has been established, at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Thompson House[edit]

The Thompson House (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. A Google search (admittedly minimal) produces no reliable sources, just the official site for the hotel and travel sites. Consequently the article reads as pretty much straight advertising. Other considerations: The article is completely unsourced. The article was tagged as an orphan nearly 5 years ago, and in that time no links have been introduced that change the orphan status. A more abbreviated mention of the hotel has already been included at Wikivoyage. — Ipoellet (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Just don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly, this is a borderline case, but this is an historic resort hotel going back to the 19th century, plus the words in the name are very common, making a search for relevant sources difficult. Adding the town where it is located (Windham) to the search helps separate the wheat from the chaff, and yields some good sources. Admittedly, some are travel guides, but I think that there is enough to establish notability for an encyclopedia with 4.4 million articles. I welcome other assessments, pro and con. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. I looked and all I can find is directory type listings. All I can find is a mention here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability is not inherited. WP:NRV is policy, and it states "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." (User:Barney the barney barney please take note of this for future discussions; User:Mabalu as well.) As such it is apparent that this article's subject has not attained the required independent notability. Therefore, there are no valid, policy-backed arguments for this articles inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hutton (hairdresser)[edit]

Jim Hutton (hairdresser) (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)

Challenged PROD. Little claim to notability aside from his relationship with Freddie Mercury, unreferenced, and the majority of content is already present in the article on Mercury. Chris857 (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Everything I can find on Jim Hutton is directly linked to Mercury, and it's true that notability is not inherited. I don't see that Hutton has particular standalone notability, although he does have a large quantity of coverage because of his links with Mercury. Personally speaking I wouldn't have rushed to nominate for deletion - he's pretty much just as notable as Larry Fortensky, probably even more so because of having written a book about his and Freddie's relationship and figuring largely in the biographies. This is a tough one. Really dithering back and forth here, between weak delete and weak keep. I think I am JUST fractionally leaning keep, but it's 49:51. Mabalu (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: Mabalu (talk · contribs) WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY and we have several articles on partners/spouses of prominent people from Shakespeare to Ringo Starr. People can be primarily known for being related to someone else. In this case, WP:BLP doesn't apply. There is I think an obsession with Wikipedia article being a "reward" for personal achievement, when actually all we need is coverage. The question I want to know is is he, including his relationship with Mercury, of serious academic interest? I think probably. I would also rename the article from Jim Hutton (hairdresser) to Jim Hutton (partner of Freddie Mercury) to identify what he is primarily notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed not policy that notability cannot be inherited (good to know!), then I'd say that it seems perfectly reasonable that this article should exist. He has certainly had plenty of coverage on him as an individual, even if it is all linked to Mercury for the most par. And yes, people would want to know a bit more about Freddie's partner, especially as that man wrote a book himself and received quite a lot of coverage on him as a person - I mean, if someone gets an article for absolutely no other reason than being hitched to Liz Taylor, then this article is even more worth keeping. So, yes, I'm swayed. I'm voting keep. Mabalu (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator: When I did a cursory search for sources on Mr. Hutton, I was finding sources, but they didn't seem to be of sufficient quality or reliability to determine this individual's notability. I'm willing to be swayed, but I'm not swayed yet. Chris857 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge selectively to Freddie Mercury. Notability is not inherited: in this case by a partner. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out to me above, the argument WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY... And a further comment - I have absolutely no objection to a merge. Certainly, apart from Fortensky (who is very definitely WAY less notable, but I bet he'd be snow keep if brought to AFD), all the other notable spouses/partners I could think of such as Anne Hathaway & David Furnish have had substantial scrutiny and consideration; or evidence of sufficent notability beyond the partnership. I looked up two other notorious serial marriers, Zsa Zsa Gabor and Mickey Rooney, and not all their ex-spouses have articles. So yes, whilst I agree there's little really strong argument to keep, I do think Hutton HAS had quite a lot of scrutiny and consideration through his Mercury links. Mabalu (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I hit Submit, I suddenly thought of Elton John's ex-wife, Renate Blauel - who DOES have an article, but is just as equally weak a notability case as Jim Hutton. Mabalu (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streets International[edit]

Streets 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)

Minor references, mostly PR-based, supporting an article on a very unimportant program. DGG ( talk ) 11:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WSJ is a minor reference? Inside F&B has an independent editorial staff, the article written by writer listed on staff page, therefore the PR tie-in is not obvious to me. As such, article meets WP:GNG. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Reiter[edit]

Victor Reiter (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)

Notability issue was noted in 2010 but not followed upon. Simply doesn't seem sufficiently notable to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Likely delete - So far, two searches (including one link for the American Horticulture Society award here) show me he actually got some good attention but more as a local celebrity. I also found two links here and here but they wouldn't add much. I found this which mentions the echeveria hybrid and this which seems to mention something about abutilons too. If he retired in the 1960s, it's likely he went under the radar and in the shadows. In my first Google Books search, I found a 2004 book that mentioned his wife and I actually found her obituary here which mentions Victor but not an obituary for Victor himself. More in-depth searches at local newspapers (including SFGate, SF Chronicle, Examiner, Contra Costa Times, San Jose Mercury News and Oakland Tribune) and only found this. FWIW, it looks like he did some decent work locally but there's not much for a detailed article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with SwisterTwister, with thanks for their careful searching. It keeps feeling like he MIGHT be notable, but then it just doesn't add up to enough. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Man[edit]

Pink Man (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)

My gut response upon reading this article is, "Are you kidding me?" Yes, there is some coverage... But no, I don't think this is sufficiently notable, and if somehow notable, encyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage. No valid reason for deletion. --Michig (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Michig. i checked the refs, they are solid coverage. Whether he deserves coverage, thus notability, is not our concern: hes got it, warts and all. PS: he is actually an incredibly skilled unicyclist.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Paton[edit]

Bruce Paton (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)

Was an orphan article even as of 2009. Since then, the hotel closed, and his personal Web site no longer exists either. I don't think there was sufficient notability here. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Schwartz (oncologist)[edit]

Laurent Schwartz (oncologist) (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 promotional article created for the purpose of advertising Biorébus, a commercial venture headed by Dr. Schwartz. Creator of the article is a special purpose account (User:Ludivine1989) whose edits are confined to Laurent Schwartz and Biorébus, and to uploading a photo for Schwartz and the corporate logo, the latter of which he identified as "own work," indicating that he is associated with Biorébus[31]. This account created two articles on this person. The other is Laurent Henri Schwartz, which I redirected to this one. Ludivine1989's other creation Biorébus also was redirected to this article following a speedy deletion request. This article relies upon primary sources and original research provided by the subject. The only secondary sources are two brief stories in French publications that do not substantiate the extravagant claims made in this article. The section of this article on Biorébus is especially objectionable, as it is an advertisement for this non-notable venture. Clearly this and the other two Ludivine1989 articles were created by Dr. Schwartz or parties related to him as promotions, and not as arms-length creations of editors uninvolved with the subject, further casting doubt on the notability of the subject. Note to closing administrator: If this article is deleted, deletion is also necessary for Laurent Henri Schwartz, and for Biorébus. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC) (nomination revised at 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found a lack of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You did not look hard enough then. I found on GS cites of 668, 145, 139, 137, 105..... to give an h-index of around 20 (being careful not to count those of the algebraist). This should just give a pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a highly cited field. Connection with Biorébus may add to notability under WP:Prof#C7. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The h-index is a "rough guide" of notability in the guideline, not definitive, and how does it address the "major achievements" stated in the article? Without them I don't see Dr. Schwartz's notability. I do not believe that the connection with the non-notable Biorébus adds one wit to notability. Prof#C7 is for "substantial impact outside academia." Biorébus clearly does not fit such criteria. Here is the promotional article on that company, created by the same obvious COI account who created the Schwartz article, before it was redirected. The same account that created the article uploaded the corporate logo and claimed copyright ownership thereof.[32] Notice that the Biorébus article contains the same extravagant claims that were made concerning Dr. Schwartz. It is inconceivable that this article or the Biorébus article would have been created by anyone other than the subject of the article or someone closely associated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is advised to develop a more thorough understanding of the WP:Prof guidelines and study past precedents in academic AfDs before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I see from your talk page that your "advice" concerning h-indexes has only recently been disputed. I think that you rely on it excessively, and that in this instance it confers notability on a person who is not deserving thereof. As the guideline states, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." My advice is that you not advise other people on this issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of effort is made here to show that the article was created by sombody with a COI. Howevern whether this is an autobio or not, or whether it was created by someone with another type of COI or not, or whether the article is POV or not is absolutely immaterial to this discussion. What needs to b decided here is whether there is any notability or not. All else is a metter for cleanup and editing, not AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only realized that there was a COI after I nominated this for deletion. Hence my revisions. I strongly disagree that COI is immaterial. This article, created by a person who has declared himself associated with Biorebus (he created the logo), makes extravagant claims that no neutral editor would make about the subject of the article. Those claims are the basis of the asserted notability. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my point. COI and POV are reasons for cleanup. Lack of notability is a reason for deletion. COI/POV does not show something is not notable, just as absence of COI and being written neutrally does not mean that something is notable. Two very different problems that are very much independent and have very different solutions. Of course, that doesn't mean one cannot have both COI and a lack of notability, just as you can have a lack of COI and clear notability. Any combination is possible, which is exactly what "independent" means. --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand the distinction. However, as you know, when promotional articles are nominated for deletion - and I am sure you'd agree this is a promotional article - the COI/SPA character of the creator is frequently if not invariably noted in the nomination. Here is one example,[33] chosen at random. I became aware of this article purely by accident, and originally my only interest was in merging two articles on the same subject. Then I noticed that the target article was based on primary sources and made extravagant unsupported claims. Only after that did I notice the COI issues here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but mentioning it is one thing. Putting in a lot of effort and keep going on about it is another. Drop it, it's irrelevant here. Also, please be aware that trying to out and editor is heavily frowned upon (to say the least). --Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "outing" by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm only "going on" about it because you brought it up. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the citation data given by Xxanthippe. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the citation data, there is a lack of independent, reliable secondary sources that I think we need, and are encouraged by WP:PROF, to determine if this person warrants an article. Two secondary sources are listed, but they fail provide sufficient depth of detail to support the notability of this person, or indicate that his research stands out from the pack. They are utiized to support the Biorebus section, but do not mention the company. I agree that the article is promotional in tone, that it stretches the facts to the breaking point ("Major achievements" should be "Areas of research") and that yes, the COI doesn't help one bit. Alleged and unsourced relationship to famous mathematician of the same name is inconsequential. Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Coretheapple on all points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the advertising is removable. Section 1 has to be written as "his current work is directed towards the hypotheses that ... " And I disagree completely that secondary sources are necessary for WP:PROF besides the GNG--they're encouraged, hey should certainly be added if available, but all that is necessary to do is to show that the person meets any of the requirements of the PROF guideline from any reliable source. Which is exactly what the guideline says RS for the GNG is an alternative option only, and in fact where we usually have debates is where the ordinary requirements of the WP:PROF guideline are not met, but there happens to be newspaper coverage from a human interest angle (e.g, "what an unusual accomplishment for a high school student"--afd results in such cases value--I personally usually discount such stories as essentially TABLOID. The key WP:PROF guideline here is being accepted as an authority by people in his field. This is normally shown by citations, because that's essentially what being an authority means in the academic world: important work is cited, unimportant work is not. (& important enough work leads to prizes and academy memberships and distinguished chairs and the other possible WP:PROF guidelines, which are really there just to simplify our evaluations).
Citations cannot however be take at face value--they mean different things in different fields, and can mean different things with respect to individual articles. Analyzing the highly cited papers (and separating them from the extremely highly cited papers of his relative, a very notable mathematician): The highly cited papers are from around 1990, and are what appears to be perfect orthodox studies, published mostly in the two most important journals in the field. He's either first or last author of almost all of them, so they were his large part his project (or as a major contributor to the statistical analysis). I consider them sufficient to establish him as an authority in that branch of the subject. The work is not really related to the "accomplishments" in section 1, which are none of them highly cited, and all of them published in minor or relatively minor journals. What I think we have is the rather familiar case of a normal scientist who in the later part of their career develops unorthodox views. The articles usually attract interest at afd because of the unorthodox views, and, to be fair, the manner in which they are presented. Rejecting these articles amounts to bias on our part. Fortunately, for WP:PROF we have an objective guideline, which we should follow. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is correct. If the two deletes above wish to challenge the applicability of the WP:Prof guidelines to research BLPs they should do so on the talk page of WP:Prof and not in individual AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, the hype and advertising are removable, and when removed you are left with nothing, just some unverifiable personal information, a couple of sketchy news clips, and some primary sources that may or may not indicate that this person is a suitable subject for an article. WP:PROF specifically deals with situations like this, by encouraging us to wait for the person to be written about: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came here from a COI report. I'm not reading the rest of this AfD until after !voting to try and remain neutral. I'm sure the AfD has also mentioned the COI and POV content but I'm going to ignore those issues for the time being and focus on notability. WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:PROF look to be the only portions of WP:N that the subject may satisfy, unless a significant portion of his life has been omitted from the WP article.
Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. I found no significant and independent coverage from reliable sources in a Google News search. Apparently Google News Archive searches have been removed so I did this Google search of scanned newspapers, ignoring articles about the mathematician. The search produced no useful articles (unless Laurent Schwartz time traveled and had a 19 year old son that was kidnapped in 1962). Distractions aside, I could find no instances of independent and significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.
Fails WP:ANYBIO. I can find no evidence of having won a major award but if he's won an award in his field, I'm sure he would satisfy WP:PROF. Subject may satisfy point 2 of ANYBIO but that would also satisfy WP:PROF which I'll get to soon.
It's hard for me to asses WP:AUTHOR in this case. I'm not an expert so I can't say whether or not he's satisfied point 2 (known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique). Fails points 3 and 4 but may satisfy point 1. If he satisfies point 1 or 2, he would presumably satisfy WP:PROF.
Appears to satisfy WP:PROF. I tread lightly because I don't pretend to know much about his field of study and how his work has affected his field. I searched Google Scholar for his work but limited the search to 1978+ to try and eliminate some crossover with Laurent Schwartz, the mathematician. this work has been cited 669 times, according to Google Scholar. This work is also listed in the article as a major achievement, and based on my understanding which is admittedly limited, that seems like a significant achievement that would satisfy point one of WP:PROF, points 1 and 2 of WP:AUTHOR, and point 2 of WP:ANYBIO.
If an expert in oncology were to come to this AfD and suggest that this achievement is less than significant, I might change my mind. Until then, this person does seem notable to me. OlYeller21Talktome 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. SarahStierch (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Perry Piscione[edit]

Deborah Perry Piscione (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)

She has notability as an author and only as an author. This could best be seen by removing this promotional page and stating over. There are extensive similarities with her self-written bio on an speaker advertising site, [34], and probably with other pages. The TM symbol is used throughout for everything she is associated with. positions are listed in a lump with clear sequence. Various professional activities are interwoven with discussions of her children. All these are routine promotional techniques. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with nom, notable author passes WP:AUTHOR #3 on book reviews.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] (not a complete list). Since Afd is a topic-level discussion, I have no immediate opinion on the content of the article or what is done there, but for AfD the topic is notable. -- GreenC 07:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well sourced and that should make this author notable. So there, keep per Green Cardamom. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

San Rafael Fire Department[edit]

San Rafael Fire Department (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 show no more than proof of existence. Large city fire departments are usually notable, but San Rafael has a population of 57,000 DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Slim references for a slim entry on an ultra-niche topic. DocumentError (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references provided include two books — Early San Rafael and Modern San Rafael — which do more than tell that the institution exists. They tell us when it was founded, where it was located, what the equipment was and even the names of its horses. This is evidently significant coverage and there seems to be plenty more to find out there. Andrew (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and DocumentError. GregJackP Boomer! 16:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep San Rafael is one of many ring cities around San Francisco and most of those also have fire department articles, of comparable size (7 stations here and across the bay in Richmond.. Oakland the largest has 24). See no compelling reason to start deleting the SF area fire stations on grounds of size, and sources do exist. -- User:Green Cardamom 15:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
probably some of these are inappropriate as well. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More sources have been found for the article concerning the San Rafael's Fire Department's shared services agreements with neighboring cities: see [42] [43] [44]. There's significant coverage for this article. Altamel (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as weakly meeting WP:GNG per online sources. Source examples: [45], [46], [47], [48]. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Found coverage in two national magazines on firefighting. See [49] [50]. These are nationally circulating sources that satisfy the audience requirement for sources. Altamel (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources cited above demonstrate notability. James500 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian New Year[edit]

East Asian New Year (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 term East Asian New Year is original research by the editor, and redundant with Lunar New Year. This article falsifies a singular cultural entity, which in reality consists of culturally disparate New Year celebrations. This article mainly describes the Chinese New Year, and gives misconceptions of other New Year celebrations with over-generalization. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Per nom. We already have Chinese New Year which is on not just the holiday in China but the globally celebrated holiday, including in the rest of East Asia. In some cases there are articles for specific countries such as Korean New Year. But there's no need for a separate article on the holiday in 'East Asia', that's already covered in Chinese New Year.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Chipres[edit]

Travis Chipres (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)

According to the article itself, this person's greatest claim to fame is as a stunt double in a film. Is that really sufficiently notable? I don't think so, no matter how "beloved" the film. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete The only significant trace of notability I could find was [51] and I'm not convinced that this "hall of fame" represents the level of award that we expect. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Manville[edit]

Scott Manville (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)

According to WP:DEL-REASON, blatant spam and advertising is grounds for deletion. The Scott Manville article has been tagged as "appears to be written like an advertisement" since its creation earlier this year. It's also clear that the creator of the article is Scott Manville himself. The creator of this article User talk:KiraCasts's only work here at Wikipedia was to create the "Scott Manville" article and the article of this organization of Scott Manville's, that being Television Writers Vault. Both the Scott Manville and Television Writer's Vault articles have been tagged as "appearing to look like advertisements" since their creation. Kira Casts sole work here at Wikipedia was to create these two articles that appear to be advertisements. I suspect also that this user is User talk:Smanville and User:72.130.156.32. And I know this may be irrelevant to the deletion policy, but this company has been blasted up and down across the Web as a site to avoid for being a scam, such as here [52] and here [53] and here [54] among slews of more negative reviews I've found on the company. Moreover, most of the sources on these articles use primary sources and sources that state nothing about the TV Writer's Vault and Scott Manville, such as this primary source at the TV Writer's Vault article used multiple times [55], this Syfy source at the TV Writer's Vault article which states nothing about the company [56], and this source that states nothing about the company [57]. I wouldn't bother clicking on the primary sources in question though as the user is likely just looking to get more hits on his website through Wikipedia. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC) AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There might conceivably be enough information for an article on the company, but not on both. Trying to make separate articles for the company and the individual is characteristic of incompetent PR efforts at WP. There would be much greater likelihood of success in a combination article. I once felt that we should help people with this, by combining the articles for them and improving it as much as possible. I no longer do, because there's just too much of it--and because such efforts at being rational tend to ben very strongly resisted. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disciple Now[edit]

Disciple Now (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 sign of notability, only primary sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sign of substantial coverage in reliable sources. From the primary sources, it appears this is more of a curriculum program than a movement and as such is unlikely to generate significant secondary coverage. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BUGSYS[edit]

BUGSYS (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 the notability criteria. Of the sources, FOLDOC is a tertiary source, while the CACM paper has only 16 citations on GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, though not by much. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church (Atlanta)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Bartholomew%27s_Episcopal_Church_(Atlanta)}}
St._Bartholomew's_Episcopal_Church_(Atlanta) (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 page describes a relatively small parish in Atlanta with no particular notability. It also reads like the church's own website, with lots of 1st person pronouns. Wsanders (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure those third party sources are significant enough to make this parish merit its own page. One is by a former pastor who seems to mention the church in passing but is not a significant work, and nonetheless fails WP:N because it is not independent; the other is a very short description in a much longer book about LGBT inclusion in churches, not significant coverage. According to the Episcopal Church's statistics, this church's average attendance is about 250, which does not make it a particularly large congregation. Wsanders (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify I fully agree with User Wsanders while there are sources in Google books including one written about the church and here ,I agree that I have not yet found one which will make it pass WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my standards. Specifically, "It ... is notable for its architecture.... It is notable for its church organ, choir, or its music programme. It has been notably large for its denomination, either in the size of the buildings or its congregation numbers...." (1) The structure has been in several archtectural blogs as being notable, as a "nice setting", and oddly, one for its "bluer" ceiling. Based on the image File:StBartsATL.jpg, the outside of the building is not only ugly, but bulky. (2) Its musical program is significantly large. It has four choirs, totalling 60 members, which would be huge for any church. The church has been noted regionally for its "performace[s]",[pdf available on Google] and it is the host for other ensembles, such as the New Trinity Baroque orchestra, Atlanta Gay and Lesbian Chorus, and the Atlanta chapter of the American Guild of Organists. (3) This has a huge clerical staff for the 21st century: it has six (6!!!) priests, a deacon, and an archdeacon (a/k/a "Venerable"). By the way, problems with pronouns can be fixed in the normal course of copy-editing. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's on its way to being fixed. Let me work on it more. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the number of clergy, the information on this wikipedia entry appears to be out of date, since on the church's own website, it only lists 4 clergy. As the Episcopal Church's own data shows, this church is not unusually large. We also only have the church's own assertions about the size of its music program as a source, and hosting a few community events doesn't make it notable. Your standards set a very low bar for churches, and sets us up for making wikipedia a directory of all churches everywhere. The mentions on the architectural blog do not make for significant, independent coverage, which is the requirement set by WP:ORG notability. At best, this church is of local interest and relevant information might be integrated into the Atlanta Diocese's page. Wsanders (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At most Weak keep -- A church with several clergy is likely to be a relatively large one, but I see little about it that is partiularly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with thanks to User:Qwertyus for incorporating the sources. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FreeAgent (software)[edit]

FreeAgent (software) (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)

Notability not established. I could find a couple of reviews ([59], [60], [61]) but, per WP:NSOFT, "[r]eviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability" and none is more than a routine review of yet another accounting package. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to challenge that notability of this product is not established. Here are some significant articles from leading global news sources from the past two years: [62], [63], [64], [65]

Lylo (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Lylo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete New references are not significant coverage, although the BBC article is very close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I'm struggling to understand why these are "very close" but still not acceptable? This seems arbitrary and subjective, and hence insubstantial to warrant the deletion of this page. The clear fact of the matter here is that there is clear coverage from BBC, TechCrunch, Wall Street Journal and The Guardian about this business to demonstrate it's relevance. Several smaller competitors of this product have Wikipedia pages with what I would consider less substantial coverage. FreeAgent is the UK market-leading SaaS provider of accounting software. --Lylo (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind to weak keep after adding material based on the sources found by Lylo (with the note that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Limited input, but the continuing consensus is to keep.Mojo Hand (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cutaneum[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Captain Cutaneum (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)

Reliable sources exist that show that someone did, in fact, create this character, but that does not automatically mean that there should be a Wikipedia article about it. Appears to be a flash in the pan local character with limited local mentions in local news media and brief mentions in very specialized publications five years ago. To have enough notability for a Wikipedia article there needs to be multiple, independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage. This is definitely trivial. It reads as a vanity piece or free advertising, and indeed the bulk of the article was added by two editors whose editing histories are nearly devoid of other edits. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can understand why an editor might find the coverage here insufficient, but it can't be fairly characterized as merely "local" or "flash in the pan". The character got substantial writeups in two different national medical publications two years apart, and in addition to multiple coverage in the Phoenix area over a period of years (including this year [66]) there's also a story from a Kansas TV station reproduced on the official website [67]. Strictly speaking, I think the extent of the coverage passes GNG, although I can see why others might set the threshold elsewhere. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, it's a goofy character of limited reach, but there is substantial coverage in reliable sources and the earlier AfD nom cleaned up the article substantially. That means if passes WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Malka[edit]

Meyer Malka (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 on non notable investor -- references consist of PR and routine announcements. "Malka often speaks on panels and at forums on global entrepreneurship and technology investing – where he connects his personal story to his investment approach – and has done so at Harvard and Stanford." in the lede is pure peacock language. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reviewing the links, exactly 1 of the 14 sources used is actually a WP:RS about the article subject, and that is a very short piece in Reuters about one of this subject's companies. I note also that this article is almost entirely created by an SPA with a generic name, so there are possible paid advocacy concerns. Lagirl24 hasn't edited since March, so a checkuser is probably not indicated. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the article is not useful with this content and under this name. I'm deleting it to make way for whatever the editors who are knowledgeable about that topic deem useful. The content can be restored on demand.  Sandstein  20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teman (Saudi Arabia)[edit]

Teman (Saudi Arabia) (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)

It is not clear what is this article about. It seams that "Teman" is "Tema" and is also a lot of thing at the same time. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article is about the ancient Arabian tribe(s) Teman and Tema, mentioned in the Bible several times and, no doubt, in traditional Muslim sources too, thus a subject likely to have been discussed extensively in literature of all sorts, academic and religious, in many languages. Though the article has content issues (a very narrow scope, and little context, and I doubt the reliability of some of the sources) it most likely is very notable, though I am not sure where and what to search to establish this. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On closer examination: there is definitely a problem with this article, though the subject may be notable. Traditionally (in Arabian sources, as far as I can tell, and certainly in traditional Jewish sources) Teman is identified with Yemen, not with Tayma (Tema) in northern Arabia. The article seems to admit (grudgingly) that this is the standard view, but advocates a WP:FRINGE view instead. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The article is seeking to discuss what Teman/Tema refers to. There seem to be two uses, which ought to mean two articles, one on Tayma which we have and another on the SW Arabian place/use. This article should then be reduced to a dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name of the article is problematic though. Biblical "Teman"/Arabian "Tayman" is, according to both tradition and modern scholarship (see [68]), either the ancient name of Yemen or the name of an Edomite tribe in Jordan. The article as it is—down to its very name—advocates the apparently fringe view that the Arabian (non-Edomite) Teman was in northern Arabia. The content may belong somewhere, depending on just how fringe-y this view is, but not at this title. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Bangladeshi writer goes into hiding The Guardian, 27-11-2007, Retrieved 10-06-2010
  2. ^ Leading Indians campaign for exiled writer The Guardian, 11-02-2008, Retrieved 10-06-2010
  3. ^ http://assamyellowpage.com/classified/hueiyen-lanpao-english-manipuri-edition-epaper-manipur-daily-news-services#sthash.uP9VMx8O.dpuf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_January_1&oldid=1142629139"