Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 January	10 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ratanapintha[edit]

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

Possible hoax Grahame (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete probable WP:AUTOBIO. found no sources to support Thai football claims. found a small article on his involvement in gridiron TV. [1]. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely hoax, based on lack of sources~~. Keep, I think there are sources but they are not easy to find. Thai Ties does seem real so I no longer see this as a hoax. Now i wonder if his name is spelled wrong in sources, hmm.~~ Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Watching the videos at "Daniel" แฟนบอลไทย-ลูกครึ่งไทยออสซี่ กับความประทับใจในการกลับมาเชียร์ทีมชาติไทย และเตะบอลกับกลุ่มพันทิปครับ, in English, it is obvious he's got a TV show, and shows him being interviewed by other media. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. Based on Fenix down's comment below, I don't think the article can stay as is. Although some of the information is true and verifiable, the football information is suspect and positioning him as a footballer seems false.
Comment. Sources do exist under "Daniel Ratanapintha". Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(copied over from users' talk page)

So I retracted my hoax suspicions after watching two of the videos. The article still needs more sources to verify as much as possible. Media coverage not by Danny but about Danny would be most helpful. And it doesn't seem easy to find. Perhaps there is misspelling of the name(s) issues? Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.matichon.co.th/play_clip.php?newsid=1354621093 Interview on Thai TV before debut

I suggest seeing if you can add something that confirms the sports clubs. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find much else as he never played first team football, they clarified many facts in the interview about his life both as a fan and player - they talk about his time as a futsal player, other facts are taken from a Pantip article aswell as social media & the TV show Thai Ties, However Matichon TV are one of the biggest networks in Thailand. Also misspelling is a very likely possibility.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, individual is a non-notable sportsman, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious hoax. Yes the person exists and has some minor TV appearances on a local area american football show, but he is not an international footballer. He has supposedly played 13 times for the Thai U-20 team but was not a member of the squad for the 2014 AFC U-19 Championship qualification in which the Thai U-20 team took part as can be seen from the squad listing here. Additionally, it is claimed he has 34,000 Twitter followers. He does not. He has 10, which is quite sad. It is also strange that he did not tweet once about any of his miraculous inclusions in the Thai national set up, or tweet at all about his footballing exploits during the period in which he was supposedly playing in Thailand. Clear WP:NFOOTY failure and as he seems only to be an entirely insignificant local media employee a WP:GNG failure too. Fenix down (talk) 14:27, 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 redirect to American Idol (season 12). Well, sure enough I guess the NYTimes writer is a Wikipedian. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jolley[edit]

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

Low-ranking competitor on American Idol. No significant coverage outside of a patter of sources for American Idol (which would be 1E). No career, nothing of note otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 12) which has a paragraph on him as well as describing his performance in the show. Not independently notable for his music, none of which has been widely reviewed or sufficiently successful. Coverage is either Idol-related or social networks, forums, user-submitted content, etc. He has a single out soon, so he may become notable (although plenty of Idol contestants' releases are flops), but right now he fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above - notability separate from the show has not yet been established via coverage in independent, reliable sources. Gong show 23:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - just another game show loser with a Twitter account. --12.232.7.194 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Fails WP:MUSICBIO and the nytimes even thinks this page is ridiculous. CrowzRSA 21:23, 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 delete. Guerillero | My Talk 04:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Smith (ice hockey, born 1951)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played briefly in the minor leagues without distinction. Ravenswing 20:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NHOCKEY, nothing to suggest notability for GNG ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 16:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to 1971–72 St. Louis Blues season#Draft picks. As a four year pro he likely passes GNG. The Kansas City Blues were the top farm team of the St. Louis Blues, and the Fort Worth Wings were the top farm team of the Detroit Red Wings. Even under the new higher bar of NHOCKEY this player should meet the criteria for presumption of notability in the same way an AHL player of today would pass NHOCKEY. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it clearly met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching pre-Internet sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it happens, playing a season and a half in the mid-minors did not satisfy NHOCKEY's old criteria, never mind the revised criteria. This is not the first time that notability criteria has changed on Wikipedia, and we have never "grandfathered" an article which fails of notability under such revised criteria.
That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Ravenswing 06:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - . Not sure if the CHL is considered a "top-level minor league", but either way the subject of the article played less than 200 and did not achieve any preeminent honors, so he fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has not received enough significant coverage to pass GNG either. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search has not turned up any sources to meet GNG. And he fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Djsasso, I have not located the kind of sources necessary to meet GNG. If Dolovis believes he "likely passes GNG", I would like to see him provide the sources that justify his assertion. Reso lute 23:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:13, 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 delete. Guerillero | My Talk 04:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Belisle[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played briefly in the pros without particular distinction. Ravenswing 20:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 16:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to List of Montreal Canadiens draft picks#1973 draft picks. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching pre-Internet sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Would you like, by the bye, to proffer a reason to Keep? Ravenswing 06:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search does not bring up any sources to meet GNG. And he also fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a glance through Google newspaper archives and Highbeam do not show any signs that this player meets GNG. Dolovis' complaint about the number of recent AFDs limiting his ability to research for sources leads me to two questions: 1. Why hasn't he bothered researching even one of these articles to this point? And 2, given he has created articles at a far more prodigious rate in the past without concern for whether any of his creations meet GNG, why should anyone take his concern on this point seriously now? Reso lute 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:14, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PAOK Sports Center[edit]

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

Not notable. The single reference is PAOK FC's own website and a search on a well known search engine did not reveal any other sources. PAOK FC may be notable, but their training ground is not. Op47 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:11, 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, KTC (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is no indication this article meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG... JMHamo (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Tam[edit]

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

The events were obviously notable, but I don't think Tam himself can be construed notable by himself. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The role he played in the proceedings was small and did not receive a lot of coverage. He is mentioned at the article Hollingsworth v. Perry so a redirect to that article might be possible, but I think deletion would be more appropriate; that one mention does not do justice to his biography. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 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, KTC (talk) 20:09, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tung-Hui Hu (poet)[edit]

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

Is this poet/professor sufficiently notable? I am not sure, but because I'm not sure, I am asking for a discussion. Weak delete at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His poetry seems secondary to his academic career. If anyone wants to create a proper article about his academic achievements (assuming they are notable) and mention the poetry along the way, then fine. Otherwise get rid of this. --gilgongo (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 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, KTC (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His poetry was reviewed in Rain Taxi [2] a significant publication. But need a few more reviews like that to pass WP:AUTHOR #3. -- GreenC 05:07, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan District[edit]

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

No such district. Fails WP: NOR Trinidade (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say its a district. It says its a proposed district. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 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, KTC (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -fails WP:V. There is some evidence online that people call this neighborhood the same, but it has not yet received official designation. We have almost never kept proposed legislation except in very well-known examples. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 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) 01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wichert Akkerman[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this person in notable sources. He served as Debian Project Leader for two years, but I don't think that in itself establishes notability. Yaron K. (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 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, KTC (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Subject doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. I may be wrong; I didn't search for info for that long. Name definitely turns up in books and articles, and he is (or at least was) a reasonably well known figure in the free software community, but not rising to the standards of WP:BIO in my opinion, even keeping in mind Wikipedia:Bio#Academics: “Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 11 January 2014

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Goldfarb[edit]

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

One of the main sources (a Bizarro Central page) is gone, and I am not seeing any real indications of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 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, KTC (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an outsider artist with some successes but in terms of WP:CREATIVE I can't find much. Need reviews in reliable sources. There is one in Broken Pencil [3] and an exhibit at Hyaena Gallery [4] but otherwise not finding much. -- GreenC 05:20, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Chin[edit]

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

Self-promo. Source also shows that. NovaSkola (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at the earlier nomination that was closed as a Keep, nobody seems to have incorporated the cited sources into the article - despite the closing request that someone do so to avoid this article being renominated! So per earlier discussion, sources exist and significantly, despite a couple of initial delete votes, once the sources were raised, subsequent votes were to Keep. This article needs improvement, not deletion. Mabalu (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody? *heaves deep sigh* OK, revised article up now. The sources cited in the other AFD were kinda crappy, but I found loads more, and I think now sufficient notability (and there's plenty more sources out there) has been demonstrated. I'd say this guy is definitely a keep now. Mabalu (talk) 12:31, 9 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, KTC (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now doesn't look promotional. I've verified the claim of one book from Schirmer Mosel and one from Stemmle; both are publishers of good photobooks, and so the biographee is notable. -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oxana Jad[edit]

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

This article written like self-promo without having any evidence behind it. NovaSkola (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I couldn't find any independent coverage in English, but it might exist in Russian. Happy to change my stance if such coverage can be found by someone who reads Russian. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I tried to search in Russian and this is hopeless, since "Jad = яд" means "poison" in Russian. One finds really strange things, but nothing about her. I second weak delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 8 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, KTC (talk) 20:03, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Farmer (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Ravenswing 19:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn player. Reso lute 19:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search shows up no sources to meet GNG. Also fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The above editors need to take another look[5]. This player meets Criteria #6 of WP:NHOCKEY and is presumed notable for having played with the Great Britain senior national team at both the 2012 and 2013 IIHF World Championship Division I. Dolovis (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets NHOCKEY. Has played internationally for the British senior national team at multiple World Championships. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 23:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except NHOCKEY says the World Championships which is the Championship division. Not the junior worlds or the Division 1 championships. And again, meeting NHOCKEY does not guarantee notability, it only presumes it. You still have to proove it passes GNG if questioned. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Division I" grouping in which Great Britain has recently played isn't the genuine World Championship top-level. Ravenswing 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the guideline is it stated or implied to be exclusive to the top-level World Championship. Nonetheless, here's some sources to demonstrate a GNG pass: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].--Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused here -- I just went over all of those links, and they're all short little bits (some of them mere mentions) of the "Team signs player to contract" sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE: "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Ravenswing 11:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant you that most of the sources provided fall under ROUTINE. Basically, I just wanted to list as many sources as I was able to unearth that discussed Farmer in semi-detail at least. However, #2 and #12 are both lengthy mentions which should avoid ROUTINE, and since GNG only requires two suitable sources, this player should be granted a pass. Plus, the sheer number of short and routine mentions, in addition to the lengthier ones, should also go toward establishing his notability. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually #12 is about Mrazek not about Farmer. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part one of the article discusses Farmer at length. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 16:43, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ring-Jarvi[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Ravenswing 19:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Dolovis (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Alaska Aces (ECHL). This current ECHL player played the 2012–13 season in Norway's top professional ice hockey league. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching non-English sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merely playing in the ECHL or the Norwegian league does not, by themselves, satisfy NHOCKEY's criteria. That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Ravenswing 06:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nn player. Reso lute 19:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search shows up no sources that meet GNG. Also fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ring-Jarvi may not meet the criteria of NHOCKEY, but I have found significant coverage of him that equates to a GNG pass. Sources: [17], [18], [19], [20].--Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 16:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has coverage in Norwegian media as well [21]. The GET league is Norway's top flight of ice hockey, and playing in it is enough to pass criterion #1 or #2 of WP:NHOCKEY. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the sources listed come beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. As far as the Norwegian league goes, it is not regarded among those leagues considered a "top" professional league; those leagues are the NHL, the KHL, the SEL, the SM-liiga and the Extraliga. The GET-ligaen is considered a lower level league which requires a player to satisfy Criterion #4. Ravenswing 14:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Where does it say that the GET league is "lower level"? (2) An article in Tønsbergs blad portraiting a player as far beyond "routine coverage" and well in excess of what is normally required to pass GNG. The WP:NSPORT FAQ says plainly "if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:37, 18 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) 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vaskivuo[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played most of his career in the low minors. Ravenswing 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to 2011–12 CHL season#CHL Awards. A current ice hockey player who, as a six year pro, likely passes GNG. He won the French League Cup as a member of the Grenoble team, and was named the MVP of the 2011–12 CHL playoffs. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching non-English sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of those things meet NHOCKEY's criteria, and if you believe that the subject passes the GNG, kindly proffer sources that qualify. That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Ravenswing 06:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of a long string of non-notable individual that upon a search turned up no reliable sources to pass GNG. Also fails NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither Highbeam nor Google news archive search bring up any evidence this player meets GNG. Dolovis' attempt at wikilawyering in place of offering a keep rationale is amusing, and pointless. Complaining about the inability to research 37 articles for GNG passes over the cumulative ten day period from the first AFD to the most recent is amusing given he has at times created a considerably greater number of pages in a similar span, obviously without researching them prior to creation. Reso lute 23:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:14, 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 delete. Guerillero | My Talk 04:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Carter (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played exclusively in low-ranking British leagues. Ravenswing 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Wightlink Tigers. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Would you like, by the bye, to proffer a reason to Keep? Ravenswing 06:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither Highbeam nor Google news archive search bring up any evidence this player meets GNG. Dolovis' attempt at wikilawyering in place of offering a keep rationale is amusing, and pointless. Complaining about the inability to research 37 articles for GNG passes over the cumulative ten day period from the first AFD to the most recent is amusing given he has at times created a considerably greater number of pages in a similar span, obviously without researching them prior to creation.Reso lute 23:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:15, 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 Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Newman[edit]

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

This is a well written and well referenced article but the subject still doesn't seem very notable to me. It's all rather shallow and indirect. Judith Newman is clearly aware of her own questionable notability as we can see from the NY Times article and I think we should have a discussion on the subject. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you kidding me?!? Wikipedia has so many profiles of guys doing this that & the other, but you want to delete a well-known female journalist?!? People use Wikipedia as a resource so if anyone wants to know who "Judith Newman" is, they should be able to find out on Wikipedia. Full Stop. JanLisaHuttner —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is a published author of several books (yes, I know that in itself isn't necessarily notable) and has written numerous articles published in national US magazines, including a regular column in the high-circulation Ladies Home Journal. She has been mentioned in other national media for controversy surrounding Rosie O'Donnell. She seems to fit Wiki criteria for notability. This article has numerous external cites. Can you point to a more specific reason you think she doesn't merit notability? Moncrief (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judith Newman is a writer who approaches her subject matter from a humorous angle, rather than as one might if a member of faculty at Harvard. At this level, by no means irrelevant or without merit, she has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Philip Cross (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may not be the most popular argument going to be cited, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." The notability and other policies are not meant to be wielded as a weapon on subjective notability or someone's non-interest as a test. We got 24 citations and several multiple non-trivial independent sources that specifically deal with the subject and this Telegraph article alone should conifer and confirm notability. This meets WP:GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I absolutely hate the way this article came to be. With a passion. That being said, based off what I've seen in the article over the past few hours, I can't really deny that the references provided meet WP:GNG. Unfortunately, "scumbag practices" is not a reason for deletion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like how the nominator is the creator of pages like Copyright law of Malaysia, Carolyn M. Heighway and stubs like Caroline Arscott which are far more borderline to those who care nothing of art. In fact Arscott, whose work is niche and valued reads only "Professor Caroline Arscott is the Head of Research at the Courtauld Institute.[1] She is an expert on the art of the Victorian period." Has Wikipedia come so low, perhaps it would be best to re-evaluate the scales some, but it is a big world and since the "Search function" capabilities and page curation has made leaps and bounds since first written, I think cases like this may set a bar for inclusion that keeps out the "My Uncle Joe makes a mean sandwich and plays in a garage band"-type notability. Its really disheartening when famous artists from non-English sources are deleted as "not notable" despite having numerous gold records and other awards. The bias blinds us from the goal, deletion is a last resort, not a means to test the personal assessment of others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article's subject admitted she's not notable and her primary justification for inclusion is that other stuff exists. She has also put out a public call with a link back to her article asking people to help her keep it. [22] Published authors are public, and as such, it's simple enough to find sources about them. However, that by no means that all authors are notable. In my view, this author hasn't yet distinguished herself. At any rate, it's clear that she fails wp:author on all points. Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I disagree with your assessment that "the article's subject admitted she's not notable." That is simply not in my reading of the NYT article. Can you explain where she says this and provide a quote if possible? Moreover, subjects don't get to decide if they're notable enough or not. Someone very famous and notable could insist modestly he or she isn't notable; that doesn't mean we delete the article about that person. Moncrief (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This person is obviously notable per Moncrief. Her numerous writings for well-known publications and her books have been reviewed, and several of these reviews are cited in the article. In addition, the article discusses occasions on which Newman received press coverage for her views and work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the hoopla around her column, she's still a published author and a significant journalist and is notable enough for a page. Robyn2000 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto Robyn2000 above, and, frankly, this article is better sourced than about half the celebrity pages that aren't being considered for deletion. Bob98133 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the number of book reviews alone, points towards her work, and thus her, being generally notable. That she insights conversation, suggests that at least some communities are interested in her as a notable subject. The quality of the referencing, improves the overall quality of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:27, 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 delete. Guerillero | My Talk 04:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Batpope[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. One off television sketch. ...William 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions....William 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions....William 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. A one-off gag would have to be truly and unambiguously notable. This doesn't even seem borderline. There's less than 200 Google hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Colbertcruft. A minor joke of no lasting notability or consequence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 17 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. G7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Ice Hockey Federation[edit]

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

The organization seems to be a one-man business, set by certain Philip Painter. I do not see any evidence that it was ever recognized by anybody. Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: reliable & independent secondary sources covering the Federation:

Yahoo! Sports: [23]
the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF): [24]
the National Hockey League (NHL): [25]

I'd rather listen to the input from the WP:HOCKEY guys as i'm completely unfamiliar with this subject.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Happy to chip in. I can't speak for other project members, but this is the first time I've ever heard of such a federation. Reading through those articles, I'm struck with that they don't discuss this "Federation" in "significant detail," as WP:GNG requires ... and scarcely at all. What they do discuss is the state of the sport in Puerto Rico -- to wit, nonexistent -- in a fluff piece fashion consonant with those debarred under WP:ROUTINE: "This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories)." When one of the stories states outright that there are just a half-dozen people interested in playing hockey, no dedicated rink, no ice time and no games, you don't have a "federation" -- you've got a wannabe promoter, and that doesn't pass any notability bars. Ravenswing 21:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:GNG (as WP:NHOCKEY doesn't have criteria for federations), as well reasoned by Ravenswing. I'd also add that as the federation lacks recognition from the IIHF or other governing bodies its claim to be the governing body is not independently confirmed. Ravendrop 03:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. No evidence of actual organized ice hockey being played in Puerto Rico. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 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 redirect to Temptation Island (TV series). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love In Temptation Island (Philippines)[edit]

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

This television series never aired. Also, no audition schedules were announced. It was announced that this will air in 2012. But it is now 2014. This article should be deleted. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom, not much to add. I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 17:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because it was never broadcast, and few details are available, it violates the highly-respected essay WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temptation Island - It's true it never got aired, but that's not a reason to delete. However, since few details were ever released (indeed, I couldn't find much information, even from TV5 sites), a redirect to the original franchise (which an explanation there that the Philippine version never aired) would be a better alternative to total deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PerlTop[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Its website is dead and DDG didn't turn up anything. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any independent sources for this system. --Mark viking (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 00:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software stub article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search revealed no significant RS coverage for this software.Dialectric (talk) 13:54, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BugOS[edit]

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

Somebody's hobby operating system. No sign of notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds cool, but I don't see where it has received any press or any other attention to establish notability. I feel like a tourist (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too bad there isn't a list article – but someone could always create one. This surely does not seem notable, however. The few Google hits that show up are Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. ––Agyle (talk) 19:04, 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 merge to Beyoncé Knowles. A shortened version can be merged into the main article on the performer. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bey Hive[edit]

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

Reason: redundant (Wikipedia has already removed other music artist "fan" articles like "little monsters" and "beliebers" and redirected back to the artists since there is no special compelling relevance that warrants separating this trivia from the rest of the respective artist bio. Loginnigol (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any pertinent information to beyonce I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously has significant coverage in numerous secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is more significant coverage of "Beliebers" and "Monsters" but even that couldn't warrant the existence of those separate articles. That is because there is no "right" on wikipedia to have a separate article just cuz there exists one or two mention of it on media. I have seen no arguments from anyone (and I couldn't think one of myself) as to why this stub about beyhives needs to be separated from the main Beyonce bio article. —Loginnigol (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It lacks any real significant content and can easily be summarised in the main page within a sentence, if that. ≡ davidmichaelscott (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Significant coverage on the term and fan base appears limited to fansites/blogs/message boards. Gong show 00:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only needs one or two sentences in the biography. Adabow (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant usage in the media even if it has not happened recently, as well as significant technology. It has been an approved article since 2012, so I don't see the necessity of merging or deleting now --Lolcakes25 (talk) 18:10, 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 04:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robu[edit]

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

This article has been flagged since 2011 for not establishing notability of the subject. Since then, references have been added, but the types of sources and their content do not actually establish notability. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably WP:TOOSOON if he's really lucky, There's refs and claims of almost-notability but the citations are not independent coverage of the subject, just examples that show the subject exists, and in the manner described. I was unable to find the significant coverage from reliable independent sources required by WP:GNG. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per User:Metal.lunchbox above; have not been able to locate any substantial independent coverage of this person, although there is a fair bit of noise in a Google search. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 17 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 List of aircraft hijackings. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QuebecAir Flight 321[edit]

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

Not notable hijacking. These were common aviation events in the 60s and 70s. ...William 14:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions....William 14:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 14:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 14:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.14:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Could consider merge to List of aircraft hijackings, but don't delete. Plenty of coverage of this event can be found by a simple Google search, and even in 2008 a newspaper headline could still refer to the perpetrator as an "infamous hijacker".[27] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge to List of aircraft hijackings or delete. It's not that infamous: the only documentation I could find was (a) news reports of the hijacking, (b) news reports that the hijacker was being let out, and (c) a relentlessly comprehensive book listing any air incident which could even remotely be considered "terrorism". If we have to list every hijacking, then this would go in the list; otherwise the notability isn't there. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Types of marriages[edit]

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

This article seems to consist almost entirely of original research. Although the subject itself may be notable, the article is so rife with speculation, WP:SYNTH, neutrality problems, and poor sourcing that it would be best to start over from a blank slate. - Mr X 12:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now but consider reorganization. The list of links to articles on types of marriage is useful and a valid list (maybe this could be renamed and kept as a list article, and possibly subcategorized). Some content could be merged with Marriage, and some is duplicated with Marriage, but that article is crazily long and badly needs reorganization. I'd propose keeping this at least until some work can be done on restructuring Marriage and deciding exactly how to present all this information. I also disagree that this is original research, as most of it is obvious and could easily be referenced: is it really OR to say some African societies permit polygamy while most western societies have laws against it? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep WHat this article needs it to be rewritten not deleted.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete This article has been tagged since 2007 and has almost no citation to validate it. The information is redundant to marriage and each individual "type of marriage" listed appears to have its own page as well. If this article must be kept, it should be condensed into a list of types of marriage.I feel like a tourist (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Please note that "types of marriage" is already given a generous section in the marriage article I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of types of marriages should be covered under Marriage itself, and probably be the first section after marriage is defined. This is regardless of the quality of this article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not opposed to the concept of this article. How long should the main article be, and should this remain as a breakaway section? Does it violate WP:FORK? Bearian (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic has clear notability in the field of sociology of family. That the article is poorly referenced and may consist OR is grounds for tagging it with article, section or inline templates, but not for deletion. If there's any reply to me here please echo me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ik lik[edit]

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

Not particularly clear why this word is important. We should not have articles about every single word of every single language. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a Maldivian(?) dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I can't find any independent evidence of notability; we don't usually have articles on words or phrases unless there's a lot to be said about them beyond definition, e.g. fuck. I can't even find conclusive proof that this is a common Maldivian phrase, although Maldivian appears to use Latin, Arabic, and Devanagari scripts and I can only read the first; but searching އިކް ލިކް gives very few google hits suggesting it's not that common. There doesn't even seem to be a Maldivian/Dhivehi wiktionary should we want to transwiki this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "not a dictionary" is not a speedy deletion criterion. However, we are not a dictionary, and this article is a dictionary-type definition of a possible neologism in another language, with no evidence of being a notable topic on its own. In short, it needs to go. LadyofShalott 18:34, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RTL1014[edit]

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

I deleted a while load before from the Unitrans fleet. This obviously got away. aycliffe^talk 10:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete if indeed the other unitrans fleet articles were deleted. No reason for each individual bus to merit its own article unless I'm missing some ridiculously notable thing that this bus did...I feel like a tourist (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a separate subject; covered already at Unitrans; no need for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unneeded seeing as it's all at Unitrans. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:33, 15 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalajara bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

The bid process will start in 2015. Noone can apply until then. Right now it is too soon for an article like this. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Petersburg bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics. Phileasson (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as this is speculative original research about a future event. This is not encyclopedic content. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unreferenced article. Also, the simple fact that Mexico has started the bidding process is not a reason to have a separate article. This topic is entirely covered by 2024_Summer_Olympics#North_America. Seems to me that an article like this for EVERY bid in that list is a bit redundant and unnecessary.—Josh3580_talk/hist 22:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bids won't go in until next summer - if they bid (and there's no certainty that they will) that's the time to create an article. Difficult to see much in the way of long term notability in speculated bids, particularly if it never actually arises. Kahastok talk 08:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments at similar Afd's. Georgia guy (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the AFD link at the top of Boston bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics links here. I would suggest that it may be simpler if we just accept that all of the arguments for Guadalajara also apply to Boston. Replace "Mexico" with "the United States" in Josh3580's comment and I believe exactly the same points could have been made. Kahastok talk 18:41, 15 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) Ethically ^(Yours) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Gaines[edit]

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

Player is non-notable via WP:NGRIDIRON. He is a college athlete, which is said in 2. as not being notable in itself, and the article gives no other reason to support he is notable in another way. Jed 20012 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jed 20012 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a simple review of online sources shows that he clearly passes WP:GNG based on volume of coverage that is specific to his collegiate career and NFL prospects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep. He was a first-team All-SEC player. In other words, the best cornerback in the best conference. And there is abundant non-routine coverage of him in mainstream media sources. Examples include ESPN profile, Washington Post, St. Louis Dispatch, Associated Press, Columbia Missourian, nfl.com, KOMU. Article does need some cleanup ("monster season"?) but not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Best" conference? now that's opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an SEC fan ... but SEC teams did win 7 straight national championships from 2006 to 2012 ... and 4 of the top 7 teams in the final AP Poll this year (Auburn, South Carolina, Missouri & Alabama) were from the SEC. As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, it's pretty hard to argue objectively that the SEC is not the dominant conference in college football. Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're top-heavy and bottom-weak.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul McDonald and Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I'm selfish, and I said so. Based on WP:NGRIDIRON principles, besides a handful of 2014 NFL Draft prospects who are notable due to national recognition or winning an award, all other articles should be deleted as well. So, in hindsight, you delete this one, you should delete 90% of them as well. So, how about we cut the conservative approach, and remove this article from the discussion of deletion. Also, you delete my work and I get angry. You won't like it when I'm angry… Canadalovesnd (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2014 (EST)
- Comment Per WP:TIND, those pages do not have to be created right away; they can wait until the players become notable under WP:NGRIDIRON. Perhaps it was just there were things missing from the article when I first saw it, which meant to me at first the article didn't meet WP:BURDEN. So please think of WP:GF; Thanks. Jed 20012 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However a lot of the copy/paste straight from his Missouri bio needs to be removed.--Yankees10 17:39, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bach Technology[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable company. It's possible that MusicDNA, a product this company may have helped create may be notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 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) 01:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. no sources provided to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This chicken and egg article about subjects whose products or creations are notable but, supposedly, they aren't is silly. It doesn't make a lick of sense ot have article on a company's products but no article on the company itself. A combined article is fine with me, but if the company's products are notable then the company itself is notable. THe same goes for authors and architects etc. Inheritability refers to a relation not to the creator of something. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does the article not link to a company website, which is problematic, Google search doesn't return any articles that support notability. As for Candleabracadabra's chicken-and-egg argument, it's not an issue since a product can be notable without having its creator be notable inasmuch as an album can be notable without having the band that created it be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some sources on HighBeam and will integrate the sources and any additional content so that you can see what you think from that point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting ready to close the AfD but considering your recent comment I'm willing to either userfy it for you to work on it at your own pace or relist within 24hrs if you've had the time to integrate the aforementioned new sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: I'm finished for the moment. There's more material that could be added, but it should be a good start. I essentially rewrote the article - it was not written for the company headquarters in Norway, but one of the locations in Germany, which might have been part of the problem. Hope this helps!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate more discussion after a rewrite & the addition of numerous sources.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment about the article's url. I was bothered, too, that there didn't seem to be a corporate website. So, I entered bachtechnology.com - hit enter and it redirected to the MusicDNA site (http://corporate.musicdna.com/). I later saw something in an article or something from several years ago that pointed to the bachtechnology site. I am guessing it's a branding approach to use MusicDNA as the domain. As an FYI, I added some comments about expansion - and having someone review the technical stuff on Talk:Bach Technology.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CaroleHenson's additions are certainly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:04, 17 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explore-A-Quest[edit]

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

A series of self published books with no reliable references to be found. Only social media, online book stores and the author's Kickstarter campaign for the books. Does not pass WP:NBOOK. Prod was removed for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing to show why this series is ultimately notable. Like so many self-published book, there has been no coverage in reliable sources and no reviews in places that we'd consider to be usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far far below the threshold of notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, fails to meet WP:NBOOK, no claims of notability, and also no media coverage that would confirm notability. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the basic notability requirements. Pichpich (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet wp:gng and WP:NBOOK. Mr RD 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Bruce[edit]

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

Musician does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as outlined in WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Primary editor's username indicates this could be an autobiography. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as there's no claims of notability that would qualify him under any criteria, also lacks of reliable sources, verifiability and media coverage. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't see that he meets any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:49, 17 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) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kulpakji[edit]

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

This is a non-notable temple. It does not meet WP:GNG and show no indication of importance. It has been claimed earlier that this temple is 2500 years old,[28] but the claim is completely misguided. The tradition of temples was not there in Jainism during that time and even the earliest surviving Jain temples were built atleast four to five hundred years after. Rahul (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its not me who made the claim of 2500 year old history. Its The Hindu which says so.[29] If that claim is false, am sure you will come up with a reference that specifically negates this claim. Which could be very difficult to establish since many references are available for that era's Jain temples. In Jainism: An Indian Religion of Salvation ISBN 8120813766 pg 44 Helmuth von Glasenapp writes that Samprati (224–215 BC) had erected numerous temples. Till you bring a source otherwise, a monument of that age is quite notable for staying on Wikipedia irrespective of its lesser media coverage. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that news item is enough to meet WP:GNG. --Rahul (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical site too. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than 10,000 people being expected to attend its reopening ceremonies (per The Hindu, clearly a reputable source) suggests it's a pretty important place for the Jain religion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 15 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 The result was speedy keep per WP:SK. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lee lane closure controversy[edit]

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

100% of content is copied from the Chris Christie article. Checkingfax (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged. In light of the discussion on Talk:Chris Christie#George_Washington_Bridge about limiting the scope of the controversy in the Chris Christie entry, I thought it would be best if the controversy had its own article. I pasted in the stuff from the Christie entry as a placeholder; I am hopeful that this entry will get filled out as our understanding of the controversy evolves. Superg2000 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a developing story and, because of Christie's profile as a possible contender for his party's nomination for President in 2016, it's now getting significant international coverage. I'm not coming down with a decision yet, but I'd be surprised if the article doesn't grow by the end of this discussion. --TS 05:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chris Christie article unless it gains enough coverage to warrant its own article. Dough 48 72 05:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There's nothing yet actually tying this scandal to Mr Christie except that it involved his staff. As the people I the other discussion said, including a long section in his article gives undue weight to something in his life he may have been tangentially involved in. I guess if it had to be related to someone prominent it would be him, but that's not a very good reason for it to be in his article. Also, even if it turns out he was centrally involved, it would still be weird for Mr Christie's article to focus extensively on minor details of this one scandal (per WP:SUMMARY). So I think it should stay here unless and until it turns out later it needs to be deleted outright. AgnosticAphid talk 06:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I concur that this article should not be redirected to Governor Christie's article, as there are proven connections with his staff, and not the Governor (yet). The story is really only beginning and is already quite notable. This article will only grow from here, so I no reason not to let such a notable scandal be documented on this site. -- Caponer (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is obviously notable and the article will expand as the scandal progresses. There will be plenty to write about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no lack of reliable source material now for this article, the issue has exploded and is getting international coverage. I agree with A Quest For Knowledge, Caponer and Agnosticaphid above. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond significant coverage, has made international media. Redirect would raise BLP issues for reasons noted above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Governorship of Chris Christie. I didn't realize that page existed until now. This is more relevant to his governorship than to himself at this point, though it impacts him directly as well. At this point the governorship page doesn't even include the words "Fort Lee", so at a minimum it'll need to be updated. If this article is kept as a standalone, I think the word "controversy" should be stricken from the title. It's not an appropriate section header, so it's not an appropriate article title. I created a redirect for Fort Lee lane closure yesterday, and I believe that's a more appropriate title. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, keep. The US Attorney is going to open an inquiry.[30] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was going to create this article myself when i discovered that someone already had. This is a very significant controversy considering Christie's potential 2016 Presidential candidacy. This is already too large of a controversy to fit into his bio.- Mr X 15:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant national coverage over time meeting WP:GNG and WP:N(E). 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least for present, and rediscuss in at least 2+ weeks. Has significant national and now international (BBC News) coverage, so would pass WP:NOTAB. Plus, if we delete at present, where do we redirect? The article for Christie himself is presently (rightfully) protected because of the disruption that this has caused. Might as well let the story develop, and use the article in the mean time as a catch-bucket for all of those updates/save the Admins some effort. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs more details, some key events are still missing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taro Daniel[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Daniel wins his next competitive match, he will then pass WP:NTENNIS - he plays that match in about 40 hours, and in that case I would withdraw my nomination. Mayumashu (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Daniel lost the match mentioned - therefore he stills fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly short of both general notability and sports-specific notability guidelines, --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:39, 17 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mains electricity by country[edit]

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

Completing AFD for anon user who writes: "As an unregistered user, I cannot complete the full deletion process, but the procedure requires me to post my reasons here.

I removed much of the table some short while ago because it was largely unreferenced. The table was subsequently restored with an embeded reference in the article to the IEC website on world plugs. I note that there is sume discussion and agreement that this IEC website is incomplete and inaccurate and has been tagged as an 'unreliable source', not without any disagreement. I note that SSHamilton stated above that this article, "...does not meet the the normal standards of WP and it would be a reasonable proposal to call for its deletion." I also note that there was and still is much bickering over the interpretation of the IEC website, which has been noted above as a guide rather than any reliable reference.

I thus now propose that the article be deleted on the grounds that its content is not referenced to the standard expected of Wikipedia and the continued disgreement over the actual content is evidence that the material is controversial and doe not even have consencus for remaining. 31.52.11.70 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)"

Completed AFD process then Keep. Article has many references. Continued disagreement over contents is not a basis for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: ITYWF that the nomination was based on the fact the vast majority of the article content is based on a single unreliable source that has been acknowledged in the article to be so. I B Wright (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly an encyclopaedic topic. Edit disputes should be resolved on the talk page and sourcing concerns by editing. I notice that the page is being actively improved. Already arguably meets WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Appears to have been nominated by anon as part of an intense edit war. No valid reason for deletion. Article may need full edit protection with multiple editor blocks. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep fairly referenced important list, no reason to delete. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if there are doubts over the current source, the information is easily sourceable, as many travel guides tell you what plug, voltage, etc, are used in specific countries (certainly Lonely Planet does). Disputes over content can be handled in other ways. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--->The following Comments copied from Article Talk page.<---

On the fence: Although I cannot fault the logic, the article is in the main largely correct (in my opinion which I accept does not have any credence in the reliable reference stakes). It is just a matter of finding the right references which would be a better result. It has been tagged for some time as requiring references and these have been slowly appearing. However, there is a very long way to go. If this article must be deleted, it would be preferable if it could be moved to a temporary location so that the references can be added as required. I feel that there must be someone who has access to the necessary standards to populate this article and maybe even correct the inaccuracies and omissions. I am aware that generally, elsewhere than the US, organisations charge ridiculously large sums of money to access both national and European wide standards on anything. I B Wright (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is too much work here to simply throw it away. Would it be an acceptable solution to go ahead and use the questionable sources, but document the problems with them? Jeh (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE: "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." There is good, eventually sourceable content, and development and improvement is in process. The ongoing discussions about the quality of sources are a matter for dispute resolution, not deletion. Jeh (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article has been vastly improved in the past week, mostly due to the efforts of SSHamilton (whose quote the anonymous proposer takes completely out of context as it dates back to November, several weeks before the improvements were started). Where the sources are imperfect that has been highlighted and the reasons given. Deucharman (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article still needs a lot of work, but it has been improving recently, thanks to the help of several editors (even when they don't completely agree with one another all the time). The topic is inherently difficult to reference to the highest Wikipedia standards because of restricted access to official standards documents, but the editors are making a valiant effort and the topic is worthwhile. Reify-tech (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I hope that it is obvious that I am doing my best to improve this article, despite the childish antics of some editors. Many thanks to those who are supporting the effort, I have not yet finished, but it would help if more editors would contribute good references. SSHamilton (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Your efforts to improve the referencing in this article are commendable. The observation that I have, is that even though I did not really support 31.52.11.70's AfD, I am now rather glad that I took a neutral stance. Even though it is clear that the AfD is almost certain to be defeated, it has had the effect of galvanising improvement to the article's referencing, so the AfD has had a positive effect. I don't know whether the refencing will ever become perfect. I have my own views of the standards of referencing in articles such as this and some other types where proper referencing is all but impossible, but unfortunately they do not square with the standards required by policy and enforced by the admins. Now all we need to do is get the childish editor to stop trying to incorporate fringe theories about what he thinks doesn't exist (and can't positively prove that it doesn't).

--->End of comments copied from talk page**<--- I B Wright (talk) 17:39, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invest in Bavaria[edit]

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

PR for a PR agency, with the sources being press releases. I don;t think this sort of business promotional organizations are likely to be notable, but if they are, it's much morel ikely to be those on a nation rather than sub-national basis. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete full of primary sources. Blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Court (in Scripture)[edit]

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

This appears to just be the dictionary definition of a word, with no given reason that any special biblical uses are notable. Chuy1530 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a definition and belong on Wiktionary not wikipedia.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article does not establish what makes this concept so unique and different in the bible than elsewhere to deserve it's own article. Furthermore, you can't refer to the Bible simply as "scripture" because it is only one scripture used by only a few religions, so this isn't presenting an unbiased, global perspective on the topic. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is not a dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 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 merge to International Conference on Computer Vision. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helmholtz Prize[edit]

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

This article was dePRODed by its author. While this prize may well be notable, there are concerns that insufficient third-party sources exist in order to comply with Wikipedia's notability criteria for stand-alone articles, and where the named recipients may not be notable according to WP:BLP, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:NLIST. One solution may be merging to the main article at IEEE Computer Society. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAMI Young Researcher Award. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the named people shouldn't matter; WP:LISTPEOPLE merely requires a reliable source saying that people belong on the list, and WP:NLIST is concerned only with stand-alone lists, while this is an embedded list in an article (barely) rather than a stand-alone list, so it defers to WP:Source list, which like WP:LISTPEOPLE, merely requires that the information in the list be verifiable with reliable sources. ––Agyle (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to International Conference on Computer Vision#Awards. Fails WP:N. This is not an easy topic to research. There are at least two other Helmholtz Prizes: one for Physics, awarded at least into the 1980s, which may be related to a Helmholtz Prize awarded in the same field by the Prussian Academy as early as the 1910s, and one for Distinguished Research in the Cognitive Neurosciences, awarded by the Cognitive Neuroscience Institute. After trying to find a mention of IEEE's Helmholtz Prize, I noticed at the bottom of the article that it's only been called that since last year, and before that it was the "Test of Time Award", which is the same name for awards given by many other organizations in many varied fields. While other Helmholtz Prizes and Test of Time Awards do seem reasonably notable, there is little WP:RS reliably-sourced information about the ICCV's award other than from the IEEE itself. Note also that this seems to be one of at least five different annual awards given at the ICCV (see list), and that other computer vision conferences (ECCV, AFCV's ACCV, IAPR's ICPR, IEEE's CVPR, etc.) also seem to give out lots of annual awards. In my personal experience, nearly all annual conferences in all fields give out awards...it's just one of those conferencey things to do. Given that this award is only open to prior paper presenters at the ICCV, it's insular, as seems common with conference awards. I can't find anything suggesting this award is particularly notable in the WP:N sense, even giving some allowance for its being in a specialized field of computer science. ––Agyle (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from delete to Merge, as per Eppstein's suggestion. ––Agyle (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Conference on Computer Vision#Awards. I could not find the independent sources that would justify a standalone article, and IEEE Computer Society is far too broad a merge target. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Bhandari[edit]

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

A search indicates little coverage in independent secondary sources that would support notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There do not seem to be reliable sources that establish the subject's notabilty. Fails WP:MUSICBIO.- Mr X 03:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. The author (who is the subject of this article) refuses to communicate, doesn't seem to be getting the message, and persists in re-creating this autobiography. This article has already been deleted twice, once under WP:CSD#A7 and again under WP:CSD#G11. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougald McPhail[edit]

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

Contested prod, unsourced article about obscure person only notable for one thing, surviving the Battle of Isandhlwana. PatGallacher (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article also says he co-founded the town of Dundee, KwaZulu-Natal, which sounds quite a bit more notable than surviving a battle. --Canley (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Looked into this, only one of several people who played a role in founding what is now a town of around 30 000 people, not much of a claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pat. Pass a Method talk 10:48, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ardito[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominatorFlat Out let's discuss it 04:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article has been speedily deleted twice, I have brought to AfD as I believe the subject fails notability for BLP and for Sports. The subject is a current world record holder but otherwise there is little coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, and according to WP:ONEEVENT holding a record is not enough in its own right. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - First of all, the practitioner in question is a three-time, not one, world record holder (one three separate occasions) and only one of a handful of Australian Wing Chun masters. I've added a number of sources to substantiate claims and the article in general. I should note that the requester for AfD has made serious strides to demoralize the article whenever possible - removing just about everything that was added under the false pretenses of "unsourced" or "inherent notability" (see the page history for details) even though some info was taken from the primary source (albeit not fully attributed). CyberXRef^talk 02:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- As a BLP, the article needs to be appropriately sourced before I stubbifed it, it was a mess] that would have been speedied. I brought it to AfD because the article had previously been speedily deleted twice for copy vio. Rather than seeking to demonize the article I have attempted to eliminate the cycle of deletion and recreation. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the subject passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC based on the extent and depth of reliable source coverage, for example this, this, and this. The world records would also seem to push this considerably past our inclusion threshold.- Mr X 04:27, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Durand[edit]

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

Promotional bio that fails to establish the subject's notability (beyond some unsupported claims). damiens.rf 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable self-promotion. No doubt that he is probably a successful entrepreneur, but this alone cannot establish notability. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.LM2000 (talk) 06:21, 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.