Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 June	29 June >

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro José de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 6th Duke of Loulé[edit]

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

Lack of notability per argument on Talk:Pedro José de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 6th Duke of Loulé #Lack of notability The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this person is actually claiming to be heir to the Portuguese throne then he might be notable, but the article claims he supports the Duke of Braganza, and the claim that some people regard him as the rightful heir is completely unsourced. PatGallacher (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't vote Pedro. He doesn't even have a page in Portuguese yet so why one in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 June 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tentative keep - If more sources can be produced to establish notability, I will vote to keep. Otherwise, delete. Bali88 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There probably won't be any. The creator hasn't edited this article in while and nothing substantial has been added about him nor can anyone find reliable sources to support his notability. Whatever relevant information can be merged to Duke of Loulé.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:42. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Per above, not a notable person. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails notability per above and lack of references in article or elsewhere to change that. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG which this historical figure sadly fails. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:02, 3 July 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Style MiSia[edit]

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

The subject of the article fails the general notability guideline and WP:MUSICBIO. He lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 23:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Bali88 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and has 0 reliable sources, sources are to album release pages and other dubious sources. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:59, 3 July 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition for a Revolution[edit]

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

Non-notable crowd-funded project. Only supported by primary sources BOVINEBOY2008 23:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM and WP:NOTYET. (Of course, there could be Indian sources we're overlooking.) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there were. Keep. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there are further sound rationales presented, as Business Standard's article shows evidence that the current arguments to delete are in error. Anarchangel (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Proposition for a Revolution

Keep Sorry nominator, but being poorly sourced is not a valid deletion rationale when sources exist, even if not used. In expanding searches, I find the topic of this planned film IS being discussed in detail in multiple independent sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] And more. The question now becomes one of does coverage of its planned production meet the caveats for notability as set by WP:NFF (paragraph 3)? I think, yes. It should be tagged for improvement, not deletion. IMHO. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw BOVINEBOY2008 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death[edit]

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

Non-notable book. I could not find any significant reviews or other coverage; the article lists just one. I am also AfDing the author as non-notable. MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBOOKS. Jim Carter ^(talk) 20:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per SPAM. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reviews to show this book reaches the claimed significance. I am not even sure the claims about eco-imperialism as a word created by this work are adequately are sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eco-imperialism#Driessen's text. There may be a bit of something here, after all. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a unique and important book. Smokey TheCat 09:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seemed clear that neither WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR are met with current evidence. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Driessen (lobbyist)[edit]

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

I could find no evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines it. All my searching turned up only things written BY him; nothing ABOUT him. Unreferenced since 2005 (yes, really!) His books do not appear to be notable either, and I will also be AfDing Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, the one book that has a Wikipedia article. MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. One book with 63 GS cites. Not enough yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment As an alternative to deletion, this article could be redirected to Eco-imperialism - a term he apparently coined and with which he is most strongly associated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term seems to have been around for a while before Driessen used it. In any case, it may be useful to merge some content from this article into Eco-imperialism#Driessen's text. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per W:V, WP:SPAM, WP:RESUME, and WP:HOAX. He's not an Atlas fellow, nor is he anywhere on the CORE website. He appears to be a consultant for two small interest groups. The other stuff appears to be crufty resume filler. 21:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
Delete Has not received any coverage from anyone else enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more than enough content in the article to make it worthy to be retained. Smokey TheCat 11:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To delete those whose opinions we disagree with can itself be Eco-imperialism. --Kevobee (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (NOTE: This comment is this user's first and only edit.)[reply]

Huh? I don't believe anyone has expressed an opinion for or against the CONTENT of what this guy is saying. Just his lack of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This whole page is opinionated. Driessen is notable because I needed to look him up. Further he has challenged both climate change and Green Peace. Who are the bigger lobbyist advocates? Anyone in the midst of a witch hunt is notable.--Kevobee (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article makes him out to be a non-notable fossil-fuel apologist (note: those are two separate things — it is entirely possible to be a notable fossil-fuel apologist, but there is no evidence here that he is one). He is certainly not notable for the originality of his ideas — they appear to be whatever is most expedient for his corporate sponsors. The one source in the current version of the article (the Mother Jones piece) mentions him but is not sufficiently in-depth in its coverage of him for WP:GNG; anyway that's only one and its neutrality on this subject is questionable. We also don't have evidence of sufficient academic impact (per Xxanthippe's comment above) nor the multiple published book reviews that might allow a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Removing '(lobbyist)' with the above search tool produces maybe a dozen or so newspaper articles from around the US over a 30 yr period quoting him, at least one book review (Moscow Daily News, Idaho), and a column or two by him. Is this sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria of WP:BASIC? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most authors pass notability based on book reviews, per AUTHOR #3. And most authors have websites where they collect "Media" mentions and this is no exception.[15] Driessen has done the work of finding the book reviews for us. However all of the "reviews" are really un-published comments from individuals, they are not published in reliable sources, so they can't be used to show notability. Unless there are reliable sources that discuss Driessen, or his works, it wouldn't pass notability. -- GreenC 00:44, 8 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spumoni (typeface)[edit]

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

This article has been around for seven years with no references or indication of notability. Google search for spumoni typeface brings up a lot of places where it can be downloaded, and some Wikipedia mirrors, but no significant discussion of it. ... discospinster _talk 21:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, no sources. Bali88 (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are there specific guidelines for notability of typefaces? --Theredproject (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't believe so. Just the general notability criteria. I looked at WP:WikiProject Typography and there aren't any notability suggestions. ... discospinster _talk 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see lots of small mentions like this. But the coverage is usually just a sentence stating to the effect that it is a fun or playful typeface. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 30 June 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 I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Him He's a DJ[edit]

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

Previous AFD resulted in keep solely because of the fact that it charted. There does not appear to be any significant coverage of the song, and almost all of the info here right now is completely unsourced.

Despite how the last discussion was closed (inappropriately, in my opinion), WP:NSONGS does not always grant notability to a song just for charting: "The following factors [charting one of them] suggest that a song or single may (emphasis not mine) be notable"; "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

For the record, the song's charting info is already present and sourced at Kesha discography. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: All editors who discussed the last nomination have been notified of this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge with "Blow"--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to album. I don't see any signs of notability besides the fact that it charted. Normally, that's enough for me to vote keep, but I agree with the nominator that there doesn't seem to be enough coverage for an article. If someone can demonstrate coverage, then I'll change to keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I stated in the pervious discussion, although I am not a big fan of Kesha, the fact that the song charted indeed proves notability. Also, "WP:NSONGS does not always grant notability to a song just for charting"? It doesn't? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only sourced info in this article are the chart positions, which as detailed in the nomination, are already covered in another article. And read NSONGS again: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." That is not the case. (A Google search for further info on this song only turns up lyric sites, MP3 downloads, and forum discussions.) Also, charting is one of "the following factors [that] suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." The "aforementioned criteria" includes "hav[ing] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," which is also not the case for this song. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that subjects don't have to pass every single guideline, don't you? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also getting the feeling that this might be closed as "no consensus" simply because if it the article were to be merged (for example), everyone seems to have a completely different idea where it would be redirected to. Is there a reason why you would rather have this deleted instead of merged if that's what it came down to? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge, exactly? Take a look at the article and see that besides the chart positions (already present at Kesha discography#Other charted songs), all of the content in this article is presently unsourced and I could not find any sources that back anything in the article. And no, subjects don't have to pass every single guideline, but this doesn't pass the vast majority of them. If the only thing it is notable for can (and has been) easily summarized in another article, what's the point in keeping this around? And as other users have !voted for, I would not be opposed to a redirect to I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album, this song's parent album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I'm a Dance Commander. Except two chartings, there is no other third party notability. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album as a plausible search term though there is not enough coverage from reliable third-party sources to warrant an article. Chase is also quite correct on NSONGS. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 09:40, 29 June 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. On a simple headcount, this would be NC, but I feel the "Delete" arguments are substantially stronger and more based in policy than the "Keep" arguments, which largely are not based on policy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saba Software[edit]

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

This article is sourced solely to press releases and is very much promotionally written. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 18:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is promotional, but a check for sources BEFORE nominating the article would show that the subject is notable and easily passes WP:ORG. For example [16] [17] [18] [19].- Mr X 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last one you point out could be RS, but the first two are self-published books, and the third is a tenuously RS, perhaps non-RS, blog. Definitely not enough to assert notability. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:B2B: apparently I see no significant coverage above the level of routine market wire, and even if I am missing something, the article as it stands now is not worth saving anyway. Thus I suggest deletion per WP:NCORP or rationale behind WP:RED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent references. As above, the refs in article are all PR, including the 'wall st journal' refs, which are in fact Business Wire Press releases, and clearly labeled as such. Of the refs added by MrX here, only the 2nd book, the Idea Group Inc/IGI Global book, appears to be independent, and on its own is not sufficient to establish notability of the subject.Dialectric (talk) 23:28, 16 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is basically a stub and should be listed as such, however the subject is notable. Seriously, you want to live in a world where you can look up publicly traded companies of this size on Wikipedia. Saba's Cloud software runs huge businesses like Virgin Airlines and Guitar Center (Also American Airlines, BP, and Kimberly Clark to name a few). Is that from press releases? You bet! ...but this is factual information, not opinion and the fact is that Wikipedia should have an article about Saba, a notable company. Right now, when people Google "saba software" the Wikipedia article pops up on the right-side in an info box. If the sources are bad, fix the sources. List the article as a stub if its too short. Deletion just takes this information, which happens to be accurate and also happens to be surprisingly unbiased, out of the hands of web searchers who need it.Christopher Lotito (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You basically say that the article should be kept because Saba Software inherits notability of its clients. It does not. If you think there are good sources, please add them to the article, or at least list them here. Until one does it, they don't exist. Actually, I tried doing so, and ended up !voting "delete". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a stub and requires improvement, but the subject merits an entry in Wikipedia, and certainly merits improvement. Per previous comments, the material is factual, and relevant, if incomplete. Arrived here following a search for Saba and finding little independent review on the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.167.20 (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just stated that you could find few sources on the web about the company. The company needs to have had lots of sources in order to qualify. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in the process of doing some cleaning on the article. I'm not sure at this point whether it should be kept or removed ... stay tuned and stay cool. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 21 June 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to establish notability. SPACKlick (talk) 13:48, 10 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WudaTime[edit]

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

Article about a newly released online software application. The only sources that I am able to find are press releases and similar closely connected sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT and WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 20:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was previously speedy deleted as A7-web content, but that does not apply to computer programs. This is the way to remove it. It's very close to advertising, but not enoguh so for G111 to be applicable. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:08, 29 June 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 Foreign_relations_of_Tonga#United_Kingdom. Anyone is free to merge in material if desired. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Tonga, London[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable, there is also no bilateral article to redirect to. article looks like someone's photo essay of a trip to the outside of the building. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no bilateral article but there's a substantial section Foreign relations of Tonga#United Kingdom. It doesn't mention the High Commission in London so not sure redirect is appropriate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- For the diplomatic mission of the UK governmetn to Tonga, we have List of High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Tonga. There ought to be an equivalent article for the reverse relationship. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is an argument for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual High Commissioners might be notable and a list of them might be okay but the building/institution itself is not inherently notable and needs to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. This doesn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still say keep - If the mission to Tonga is notable (and it seems to be as we have a list article on it), the mission from Tonga should be too. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an accurate reflection of bilateral relations, though, is it? As far as Tonga are concerned, the mission from Britain represents one of a handful of incredibly important relationships with other countries. As far as Britain is concerned, the mission from Tonga is that of just another Pacific island nation. The notability requirements here are the same for any other organisation, group or entity - it must meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG and there's no evidence it does. Diplomatic missions, embassies and consulates are not inherently notable. Again, aspects of the relationship might be notable and those can be noted at Foreign relations of Tonga#United Kingdom or at the not-yet-created Tonga–United Kingdom relations (which should be created far sooner that articles for individual non-notable buildings). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:39, 22 June 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of Tonga#United Kingdom. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Tonga#United Kingdom. Does not meet ORGDEPTH so independent article is not warranted. Let's be clear: the article consists of a single sentence, but there is no reason why that should make merging inappropriate. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 07:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a redirect may be in order but I'm not confident on that. SPACKlick (talk) 13:47, 10 July 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vahagn Ayvazyan[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 00:24, 1 July 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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5: The Passing of the Techno-Mages – Casting Shadows[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced pulp sci-fi book. Fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much like the other book from the same trilogy also up for AFD right now, this book fails WP:NBOOK. It consists of plot only information, with no claim of notability, and I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing or reviewing it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did the usual range of searches, and don't see the sourcing we'd need to meet WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Can't find any review of the book. The article on ruwiki was deleted last year.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyline Alcantara[edit]

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

Autobiography, unreferenced claims, seems like a promotion — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} 14:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. No coverage. Clear COI as it's an AUTOBIO. Written like a promotion. Cowlibob (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tentative delete - It appears to be self written, so it would need an extensive rewrite, but she does have a few acting roles. I'd like to make sure these aren't notable shows in the Philippines. Just because the article was written by an 11 year old doesn't mean she isn't notable. I'd suggest getting some feedback from those familiar with Asian TV before we delete. Bali88 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional bs. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:33, 29 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Striper 2[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a film. I am unable to find any evidence that it will exist, let alone that it is notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above Wayne Jayes 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this file whatsoever. Not only is there no coverage in reliable sources. There isn't even any coverage in unreliable sources which leads me to believe that this is a WP:HOAX. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I agree that in the lack of any source of evidence of its existence, this is likely a hoax. I cannot find anything on it or its supposed predecessor. See WP:MADEUP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:01, 1 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dao–Moses circle[edit]

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

Not notable. Similar to Dao six-point circle sourced but only to an entry in a list; no in depth coverage and the list isn't a reliable secondary source. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already articulated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao six-point circle. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no important,--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps this should be deleted, but it will likely be rightly reinstated after a year or so. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think like Michael Hardy, now delete or keep is not important, but I think it is must on wikipedia in the future. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 13:37, 3 July 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; good discussion though. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kvikkalkul[edit]

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

Programming language based on a Usenet post, article has gone unreferenced for 13 years, couldn't find any reliable sources that mentioned it, does not seem to meet notability criteria. Prior AfD said a book mentioned it in a joke; does not sound like significant coverage. Agyle (talk) 12:01, 28 June 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 June 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see absolutely no coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing useful. Truly nothing. Msnicki (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a bad usenet joke that isn't notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an early esoteric language. It is documented in reliable sources like FOLDOC and The Retrocomputing Museum. Based on a Usenet post in 1994, it has become a minor part of computing folklore, like Intercal. These RS are enough to establish verifiability and some notability, but I am not sure there is enough depth to declare notability according to WP:GNG. The stub itself needs refs, but the prose is fine and seems accurate relative to my knowledge. I am on the fence in terms of a recommendation. If there was a good place to selectively merge, maybe Esoteric programming language#Examples, I think that would be the best option. --Mark viking (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking, I don't consider either an indicator of notability; they're self-published personal websites, lacking editorial oversight, and FOLDOC seems to be written by a non-expert (see WP:QUESTIONABLE). One of the two "curators" of The Retrocomputing Museum is well-known computing author/activist esr, so TRM could arguably be considered a reliable source, but its coverage of Kvikkalkul is just two sentences, falling short of WP:GNG's requirement for "significant" coverage. Agyle (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foldoc has been around for nearly three decades; it is the original dictionary/encyclopedia of computer jargon and folklore; it and the jargon file are nearly canon for early computer folklore and culture. Kvikkalkul on the The Retrocomputing Museum has a two-line definition, but the entry is also an active link to an archive containing a manual, grammar, compiler and programming examples. What is your criterion for expert in computer folklore? --Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's criterion is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There are gray areas and areas for interpretation (e.g. how broadly to interpret "relevant field", what constitutes a "reliable third-party publication"). Personally, I also consider the breadth/depth of the work(s), where they were published, and the author's standing within that profession, cutting slack for say a full professor or well-known/influential figure in a field who's published only one paper but in a reputable scholarly journal. Some people are more inclusive, satisfied if an author got one work published on a remotely related topic in any third-party publication.

In the case of FOLDOC, I just checked, and Denis Howe is in what's a gray area for me: he had two CS-related papers published in conference proceedings while in graduate school, in 1992 and 1993, on Spineless Tagless G-Machine programming. In general I don't think I'd consider him an "established expert" (in the Wikipedia sense) in computer science (which I'd broadly extend to cover FOLDOC). On the other hand, FOLDOC itself is widely cited. On the third hand, FOLDOC borrowed from other questionable sources, had 2000 contributors, and 150 guest editors, with unclear editorial oversight. On the whole I'd probably not count it toward notability, and treat it very cautiously as an authoritative source about a particular subject...it seems a bit like relying on Wikipedia. :-)

Regarding TRM's link to a gzip with other material, I'd only consider esb's work reliable, not third-party materials that he archived or linked to. (I didn't download the file to check). ––Agyle (talk) 07:52, 1 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Ayala (featherweight boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD was only recently closed as Keep however during the course of the AfD this boxer was confused with a notable boxer of the same name Paulie Ayala with references and information added to the AfD subject. The confusion wasn't caught resulting in what was essentially a Keep vote for the wrong boxer. Please see the subjects Talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I'll admit to being fooled/confused at the first AfD. The sources for the two fighters were even mixed between them. It's true that a WBA title meets WP:NBOX, but it's the other Paulie Ayala that has that. This fighter does not meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also was confused about the first AfD discussion; that two boxers, both named Paulie Ayala, from the same area, only about 10 years difference in ages, well, what is the chance of that. My sense is even the boxing media made similar mistakes too. As per PRehse and above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 5 July 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Bittner[edit]

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

Previously deleted via PROD. The subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played a match in a fully professional league. There is no indication the article passes WP:GNG as no evidence is present to show the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPEV[edit]

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

Only sources are primary; notability of group has not been established. McDoob AU93 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see WP:BEFORE, notability could easily be established with a 20 second google book search. See for example; http://books.google.com/books?id=GFAnPZsdhPsC&pg=PA165 and http://books.google.com/books?id=fRJtB2MNdJMC&pg=PA417 --Soman (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURDEN and WP:BOLD, be my guest and add whatever is needed to improve notability. Not sure why it wasn't done at the outset when the article was started, but that's a discussion for another time. --McDoob AU93 18:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs apart, there is no iron law that says that all unreferenced material automatically have to be deleted. When encountering an ill-written or poorly referenced article, improvement is a better first move than deletion. --Soman (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 20 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most of the text in the article was the same words as on the COMNAP site so has been removed. I've added revised text linking to other articles on their projects, with book references. There is enough evidence for this as a worthwhile stub which can also be cross-linked on these other articles. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notable institute. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baari Tar Bangla[edit]

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

newly released film with no claim of notability or independent sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the second G-hit is an extensive review in the TOI [20]. It is possible to find out more about the film: [21], [22], [23]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep a little research shows multiple reliable sources discussing this topic. Per WP:INDAFD, Baari Tar Bangla meets WP:NF despite its addressable current state. Come on Jim, did you look for sources before nominating? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:00, 3 July 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-deletion G11. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to ExclusivElectronics.in : Multi Brands Direct Store at Lowest prices[edit]

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

Promotional content. Title even ridiculously abnormal Nkansahrexford (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:NOT. Far too promotional. Concur on the title. (Ugh! :-o). I'd have sent this for speedy deletion, CSD#G11.--220 of ^Borg 06:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grouvellina hova[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I think this should be transwikied into wikispecies instead. TheQ Tester (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DEFACTO. All living things are notable, per that. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. All species are notable. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. No argument has been advanced that the beetle in question is not a separate and documented species. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the above. This is the second disruptive nomination by this editor, who specifies on his User page "This account is used to carry out harmless experiments for example: testing out some Welcome notices and talkback templates." We're headed for AN/I if this keeps up, my friend... Carrite (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly within the scope of what a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover. It is in this book. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQ Tester (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 July 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. Nominator withdrawn. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lee (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. TheQ Tester (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bit confused at this nom. Point 1 of WP:NPOL clearly states that someone who's held sub-national office (provincewide) meets it. He's a member of the BC legislative assembly which is the government of the province of British Columbia in Canada. Cowlibob (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Cowlibob says he does meet the notability guideline as a member of the British Columbia legislative assembly. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article does need some sourcing improvements (two of the three citations are to a primary source), but serving members of a provincial or state legislature do meet WP:NPOL. Flag for refimprove, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep: 100% unambiguous keep in line with policy. Can this discussion be closed now? Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets point 1 for politicians. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously as a member of a sub-national legislature. The nominator clearly hasn't actually read the guideline he's cited as a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - He's a MLA of the British Columbia Provincial Assembly, the equivalent of an elected US state representative. Instapass of WP:POLITICIAN. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that the User page for User:TheQ Tester declares "This account is used to carry out harmless experiments for example: testing out some Welcome notices and talkback templates." One person's "harmless experiment" is another person's "pointless disruption," I reckon... Was there a purpose behind this flagrantly bad nomination? If so, what??? Carrite (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question most likely just forgot to sign out of his "testing" account and into his "editing" account first, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. And in all likelihood, the user also just misunderstood WP:POLITICIAN rather than having an ulterior motive to actively undermine it. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw - and yes, I've read WP:Politician wrong. Sorry for all the mess I created. And the only testing going on is on my talk page, not on another namespace.TheQ Tester (talk) 04:00, 4 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'ron Forbes[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO due to a lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The article has been deleted four times at Focus the Producer (three for advertising and one for notability), the article creator has not moved this article around various places, and the subject still does not meet the notability guideline. The main contributor is obvious a SPA, it appears his only editing concern is this not yet notable producer. All references are to random low level blogs, that are not considered reliable sources and extremely low selling on Amazon.com is not even worth mentioning per WP:SINGLEVENDOR, let alone provide any notability at all. STATic message me! 05:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject of this article is notable for being the owner of one of the largest music production companies in the Unites States. He is the owner of dirtyscopebeatz.com which is ranked in the top 75,000 websites in the Unites States. It is also ranked in the top 400,000 websites in the world which if you consider there are an estimated over 600 million websites in the world that is a very notable factor. The subject of the article D'ron Forbes is also one of the only widely know music producers from his birth place making him some what of a corner stone. He has also placed very highly in major competition. During his run on the battle circuit which was hosted by Grammy award winning producer rockwilder, he ranked in the top 40 battle winning producers and the top 50 selling producers of all time.

I think this information alone makes this subjet (D'ron Forbes) notable. Maybe the article could be worded differently but I am new and have no help as people would not want to help me. Thank you for your time. Look and you will see that this is the real Focus The Producer right here. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --LennyPerez44 (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which of those search results constitute the significant independent coverage in reliable sources that would establish notabaility. I can't speak for other editors, but I did search under both names, and fiddled with search parameters and was unable to find any of the needed coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually just wanted to clarify that there is a Focus... and a Focus The Producer, just as there is a Chance The Rapper. So many people are confused, but the professional name someone goes by is everything. --LennyPerez44 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed formatting to be in line with AFD standards.♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Yes everyone understands that, there is no confusion going on at all. There is a notable producer named Focus... and one with a similar name, "Focus The Producer" who is not notable per our notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 21:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people feel different than you do StaTICVapor. If not the article would be gone already right? --LennyPerez44 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree since every vote on here is for deletion. Just wait a day or so. This time please do not try to repeatidly recreate an article for this person, as it will be deleted on spot per one of our speedy deletion criteria. STATic message me! 17:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete and Userfy see below for reasoning A simple Google search points to ~~this source~~ many sources which validates notability. I'll be honest I know absolutely nothing about hip hop music, but ~~many~~many are pretty well established, not the New York Times, but established nonetheless. ~~All a subject has to do is meet one criteria of WP:MUSICBIO to be notable this one meets at least three.~~ ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striked through my own comments, Focus... is a different person. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

As much as it pains me to say so and given all the work that was put into this, I spent all weekend going to libraries, looking at trade magazines, anything to validate this article's subject. While he is more notable than your average artist/producer trying to make it, he just doesn't quite meet the hump required at WP:NMUSIC. @LennyPerez44: When this get's userfied, I will work with you to try and get it to where it needs to be. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is not a ridiculous, "I'm well known in my immediate circle of friends" type of article. There are plenty of mentions, esp. in non-RS sources, and being non-RS does not make them bad or evil, just hard to use for our purposes. Obviously, given my "salt" vote, I don't think a good case can be made now, or is likely in the immediate future. But, perhaps once some time has passed, better sources will emerge, or the reliability of existing sources will become more obvious. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solarra thank you very much... I understand the code of Wikipedia better now. I appreciate you being willing to help. Hopefully we can make it happen, this guy has talent and I really like his work. I honestly thought it would be cool to be a wikipedia author as well lol... --LennyPerez44 (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true the article is written by one individual, but this one is acting purely in good faith. He is new to Wikipedia and has shown an eagerness to learn and understand Wikipedia policy. To me, this is not a case of a SPA, just a new user trying to write about a subject they are passionate about. He has a good established history of asking for help and trying to learn, in my opinion this is not a SPA, but a good-faith editor trying to write an article on something he's passionate about. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addition The article was deleted four times for various CSD criteria to include A7, and G11. It was nominated in this current form and was declined, (userfied), then moved back into the article space when it was more in line with guidelines. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Solarra: You are completely mistaken, the producer those refs are discussing is Focus... a widely known and notable producer, not this person. STATic message me! 06:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@STATicVapor: Easy mistake to make, that source is about the Dr Dre producer (as I said I know nothing about hip hop). However there are still many places out there that talk about this guy (at least I'm pretty sure they're talking about him, not Focus...). ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Solarra: Of those two sources, the first is a press release website and the second is a personal marketing website, most certainly not anything that would fall under WP:RS, or be considered significant independent coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 07:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this article and its variants Focus the Producer and Focus The Producer, to prevent a 6th deletion go-around since beginning of the year for this non-notable BLP. No substantial, independent reliable sources offered or to be found. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solarra as you remember when we entered into this discussion last night, I mentioned STATic had interest in another producer by the name of Focus of whom he claimed to know nothing about but yet here he is speaking of him. That proves my point exactly that he only wants the article on D'ron Forbes deleted because he has personal interests at hand. Claiming to have never worked on that article when I saw his name in the edit log of the Focus... article. That is proof that STATicVapor is in no way acting in the better needs of wikipedia but of who may be a close friend in this other producer. When someone has ran one of the top companies in the world as D'ron Forbes has for over 5 years and remains in top rankings all over the world, I think that is a notable aspect. When I decided to write begin writing articles on wikipedia I chose this guy because I saw people speaking very highly of him and many other things such as his high ranks in the Rockwilder battle arena. He is a top seller and a top battle producer in the world, the grounds for notability states that in major competitions if a person does not have to be ranked in the top 10 but make it to a notable point in that specific competition.

Also when it comes to notability wikipedia also mentions being the top in the country of origin for the profession, can you name another record producer from The Bahamas as big as this guy is? --LennyPerez44 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know of the other producer, most hip hop fans have. My only single edit to his article was on March 6, 2011‎ and have made tens of thousands edits since then, the article has never even been on my watchlist. You are acting quite ridiculous Lenny, I am no friend of him, but I am certain to believe you must be of D'ron Forbes to care this much about such a seemingly unknown producer and have such a vendetta against the similarly named producer. STATic message me! 00:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@STATicVapor: I simply spent a whole lot of time creating the article and building up the facts and would hate to see it deleted. Can you seriously tell me the owner of a website ranked in the top 75,000 websites in the united states is not notable?... Do you also mean to tell me that being a top selling and top battle winning producer on a powerhouse network ran by another notable entity is not notable within itself either? I can not understand why it would not be notable.

I have given you references to the facts that matter the most as well as references to the back up facts. You cannot really tell me there are grounds for eliminating this article. I am learning more about wikipedia everyday and will get into writing other things. Just as I learned how to ping you in this comment by paying attention I will learn how to create better articles. --LennyPerez44 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest that every owner of those 75,000 websites should have a Wikipedia article? I am sure less then 100 of them do. That is such a minor achievement it is hardly even worth mentioning. As for top selling and top battle winning, no reliable third party sources have been cited for that information. None of the references you cited are reliable, they are just minor low-level blogs and primary sources. I also like how you completely dropped the Focus... thing once I proved how wrong you were, you lost all credibility after you were grabbing at straws like that. STATic message me! 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that would establish notability. The sources in the article are a mix of primary sources and unreliable sources. I do not see that "there are still many places out there that talk about this guy" as asserted by @Solarra: above. My own search shows only more unreliable sources. I also concur with @STATicVapor: that the two sources offered are a press release, and marketing and fail to be independent. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 30 June 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 Newry#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Hill Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school for children ages 5-11. Zero cites. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newry#Education per established consensus for non-notable primary schools. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Concur with Philg88. Finnegas (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newry#Education per established consensus for non-notable primary schools as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 29 June 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 Newton Leys. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Longville Brickworks[edit]

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

Completely unsourced; notability not established. McDoob AU93 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newton Leys. Newton Leys is effectively a new suburb, which is being built on the site of the old brickworks. The appropriate course is thus to include more about the brickworks in the article on the new settlement. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 22 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No refs so merge is the best option. Szzuk (talk) 22:18, 5 July 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 Karaoke Superstars. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barlow Girls[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karaoke Superstars, the album on which it first appeared. Borderline notability--plenty of stray mentions in reliable sources, sometimes referring to it as "a hit", but I did not see substantial coverage or actual evidence that it was a hit. But, even puffed out with some dispensable trivia, it is a stub, and per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I don't think there is anything worth salvaging that's not already in the album article, but if anyone disagrees, "merge" is also fine. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:47, 4 July 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, at least until reliable sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5: The Passing of the Techno-Mages – Invoking Darkness[edit]

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

Completely in-universe treatment of non-notable pulp-fiction sci-fi book. FAils WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least two reliable sources review it. Amazon.com quotes these editorial reviews, and says they are also quoted on the back of the book. [24] Dream Focus 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing reviews aren't regarded as reliable sources unless they can be directly sourced. OBviously, the quotes on the dust jacket are primary sources and similarly not reliable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed a quick Google search for the official sites would show that, but not all newspapers allow their archives to be freely searched. I doubt they'd lie about being reviewed in The Sunday Telegraph. Dream Focus 09:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 10:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, however, that those two reviews listed on the Amazon page are not for the right book. They are reviews for "The Shadows Within", a completely different Babylon 5 book that happens to be by the same author. Its pretty much one of those "Hey, this older book by the same author got these good reviews, so this one might be worth checking out" kind of marketing, and says nothign about this particular book having any sort of critical reviews. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have struck out my keep vote. If no reviews can be found at all, no proof it is notable. Dream Focus 09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. It does indeed fail WP:NBOOK. The entire article is nothing but plot summary, and there is nothing to indicate any kind of notability, nor are there any reliable soruces that discuss it. As I commented above, the two reviews that Dream Focus pointed out are, in fact, for a completely different Babylon 5 book, and this actual book itself has no reviews that I can find. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Landfill Site[edit]

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

Notability of a landfill is questionable, and only provided source is the site owner. McDoob AU93 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newton Leys the new settlement being built next to it. My guess is that Newton Leys will expand over the site when it is full. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 22 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like an ordinary brownfield. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete no third party significant coverage. Its former role as brickworks is covered in its own article. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non article. Szzuk (talk) 22:21, 5 July 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 Adithya Srinivasan. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Hi Dilruba[edit]

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

The references all seem to talk about the artist and only mention the song in passing, and notability is not inherited. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adithya Srinivasan, the artist. This stub has no info worth keeping that is not already on artist's page. Substantial coverage from independent reliable sources is quite lacking. And per WP:NSONGS, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Frankly, the notability of the artist himself is a little shaky. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:57, 4 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MazaCoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. The only claim to notability is that it is "the official currency of the Lakota people", which is not true per the WSJ, and the other sources provide no evidence whatsoever of this claim.

The entire premise of the articles is that it is an official currency or will be used by the Lakota people, and none of these have hweappened.

The sources are clearly questionable due to their inconsistencies and lack of evidence. The media coverage was sensational and short lived. --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 00:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with nominator's premise that notability was based on its official status; notability was claimed based on its attracting notice and significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. While many sources mentioned the official status, not all did (Christian Science Monitor and CoinDesk, for example). Different views of the cryptocurrency's official status, and of the tribe/nation's status, are discussed in the article, and provide a good example of why Wikipedia requires multiple independent sources to establish notability.

I also disagree with the nominator's deletion rationale that coverage was short-lived and sensational. The WP:Notability section "Notability is not temporary" says "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It does allow for exceptions, in particular for otherwise low-profile people associated with a single event, and allows for reviews of past decisions "from time to time", but I think the previously-established notability is still valid. An essay at WP:NOTTEMP gives an example of non-notability with a topic that was covered for 2 days and never covered again, while Mazacoin attracted significant coverage over a 2-3 month period (the currency launched in February). Ongoing coverage has definitely diminished since March, when the subject was last nominated, but it has attracted some coverage since then (e.g., in mainstream news sources like Fortune, Scientific American, L'Express (brief coverage), and dubiously-RS bloggier sites like Bustle, Absolute Rights, and Новости по-русски). Agyle (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 15:03, 30 June 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.