Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 March	11 March >

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lebron Massey[edit]

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

I can't find any verification of the claims made about this singer, specifically the following claims to notability:

"His debut extended play, the track "Like a star", was released in November 2010, and was certified platinum in the United States" -- not according to RIAA web site.
"Jordan's first full-length studio album,Instinct , was released in July 2013. It debuted at or near number-one in several countries. Jordan released his second studio single "Ring the Alarm" when it debuted on the Billboard 200." -- no source for this, and I can't find any.
"Jordan has received numerous awards, including Artist of the Year Awards, at the 2010 Australian Music Awards." -- no evidence of this.
"Kids Choice Awards Best New Upcoming Artist (Winner)" -- is this supposed to be the Nickelodeon awards? if so, he didn't win it.
Discography section in general -- sources given don't verify the chart positions or sales.
Hollywood Records web site has no mention of him.
Google search for Jordan Lebron Massey only brings up entries in self-submission directories, iTunes, lyrics sites, and social media, and no significant discussion in reliable sources.

... discospinster _talk 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability.reddogsix (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Belgium–Canada relations. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium, Ottawa[edit]

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

There's nothing notable about the building itself (or more accurately, the 8th floor in particular). Coverage of the diplomatic relationship is already provided at Belgium–Canada relations. The subject, in this instance, is the single floor of a commercial office block. Stalwart111 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Why bring these to AfD? Just merge it with the Belgium–Canada relations article. Pburka (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much there to merge but I wouldn't oppose that or a redirect. Either way it can be good to have some others weigh in on these ones. WP:BOLD is one thing but this is an embassy. Non-notable, sure, but discussion doesn't hurt. Stalwart111 03:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there isn't content worth actually merging. as it stands it fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fleck/Paterson House. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Algeria, Ottawa[edit]

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

The embassy is located within a notable building which is already (quite rightly) covered at Fleck/Paterson House. The Embassy itself, though, is not notable. Nothing about the institution itself has gained significant coverage since Algeria purchased the building in 2002 in fact the only reference provided is from 1994; 8 years prior to their occupancy. The building is notable, the fact that it is an embassy is not and coverage of that fact in the article about the building is sufficient. Stalwart111 22:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fleck/Paterson House. They were originally one article, and I don't see a reason for them to be separated. - SimonP (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by SimonP. Be WP:BOLD. No need to bring these to AfD. Pburka (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no need but this has been around for 9 years so taking a few days to get consensus seems only fair. I'm in no rush. Stalwart111 03:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW and probably all 3 WP:SK criteria. (non-admin closure) ₆an⁶sh₆ 03:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tseng Kwong Chi[edit]

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

Not notable Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Clearly Kwong Chi is notable, there is significant coverage in reliable sources, his work is in the public collections of Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Theroadislong (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great; got refs? Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - passes WP:ARTIST #4, probably #1 and possibly #3 to say nothing of WP:GNG which I haven't considered in detail given how easily he passes our special inclusion criteria. But if you want to go there we have significant coverage from the Smithsonian (National Portrait Gallery) here and from Theatre Journal (Johns Hopkins) here and from the Encycolpedia of Asian American Artists. Mr SPA, you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting this deleted. Stalwart111 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTIST says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:ARTIST doesn't say that at all, WP:GNG does. He passes both. Easily. For the reference of others, my "speedy keep" recommendation was based on section 2e of WP:SK: "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". Stalwart111 00:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom; I see no significant coverage. I am unimpressed with the references to date;

4 references are in the article as of today [1];

1. "^ Kelley Kara. "Encyclopedia of Asian American Artists". Hallmark. p. 229." - I am unable to verify "Encyclopedia of Asian American Artists" but I suspect it is a passing reference ("Significant coverage is more than a passing mention" - WP:GNG) - I suspect this is a very brief mention;
2. "Photos by Tseng Kwong Chi with Keith Haring at Paul Kasmin Gallery" - this link makes no mention at all of the subject, other than "Photos by Tseng Kwong Chi" - it is absolutely a 'passing mention' and has no information to establish GNG
3. " artasiamerica digital archive" shows a website that makes no mention of the subject.
4. "http://artasiamerica.org/artist/detail/69" seems promotional, and not a reliable source

I see no significant coverage to date, and thus no claim to meet standards of notability. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "per nom"? You are the nom. You don't get to vote twice and it's assumed you support deletion because you nominated the article for deletion. Notability is based on the sources available, not the sources currently listed in the article. Any reason any of the sources I provided above shouldn't be considered? Did you actually conduct a basic search per WP:BEFORE? Stalwart111 00:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick look on GBooks shows plenty of coverage Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator didn't really read the article, or didn't do the appropriate due diligence before bringing this to AFD. The subject clearly meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you support that with any actual information, instead of just spouting random accusations?

If you have refs, great - please add them, thanks. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In addition to mentioned sources, we also have The New York Times:[2][3] + many other references establishing that this is an artist of lasting reputation and influence. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Close and/or Snow Keep. The nominator User:Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. It never had a chance on GNG grounds anyway. Note to the nominator: Renominate with your other account, which you bragged has 100k+ edits and 3 FA's to its name. Why are you hiding behind a SPA, no one assumes Good Faith in light of your recent burst of bad behavior. -- GreenC 02:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion provides ample evidence that the subject is notable. Problems with the article (as well as the suggested merge) can be dealt with through the editorial process. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse scheduling problem[edit]

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

Written like an essay. No references. There is nothing special about nurse scheduling that does not apply to scheduling constraints for any field. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there are staffing issues related to nursing (which...as a nurse, short-staffing can be a serious problem in the industry), but those issues should be noted on the general page for the career. This is an essay. Bali88 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere. There is a substantial literature on this specific operations research problem (over 1,000 Google Scholar hits). It might be better discussed in a broader context, though I see no ideal merge target. A WP:TROUT to the nominator for not doing a WP:BEFORE check. -- 101.119.14.210 (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Nurse scheduling". Of the four external links provided, only one (Goodman) is clearly relevant. One link is to an archived format and the other two are not found. There are papers that describe the nurse scheduling problem (Weil and Okada). However the more generic title, "Nurse scheduling", provides other suitable references (Sitompul and Yen). The article requires clean-up and in-line citations. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schedule (workplace). I don't think there are major differences between nurse scheduling and other jobs (air traffic controller, grocery worker, police, ...). Admittedly the target I suggested is not well developed so it could be improved by the merge. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a computer science problem. As Obi-Wan Kenobi commented, merging this article with Schedule (workplace) would be analogous to merging Traveling salesman problem with Travel because lots of people travel, not just salesmen. That may be true, but it misses the point. The topic is about how to get a computer to provide optimal solutions to a complex non-polynomial problem, and the use of 'salesman' or 'nurse' is mostly just a convention to give the topic a name which is easy to express and understand. -NorsemanII (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NorsemanII I don't think I'm very far from your position. My only concern is that the name Nurse scheduling problem may make people (for example Bearian) believe that this is specifically about Nursing. This is confused by the fact that a significant part of the literature is indeed about the practical problem of scheduling nurses (in contrast to the travelling salesman problem which is never about travelling salesmen). So I'm not strongly opposed to the title, but I'd prefer something more generic if possible. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dingo1729: You make a good point that it seems like most of the articles about the nurse scheduling problem do not talk much about applicability of the solution techniques to other fields, even though it is widely applicable to other fields. I agree the name is a little bit misleading, though I'm not entirely sure how to deal with it. The NSP is essentially applicable to all employee scheduling problems, and vice versa. If you can handle 24/7 nurse staffing for a hospital, you can handle 24/7 operator staffing for a call center, or driver staffing for a 24/7 taxi service, or cash register staffing for a 24/7 grocery store. However, scientific literature seems to place heavy emphasis on nurse scheduling. For example, the literature review in Resident Scheduling Problem devotes about 1½ pages to generic manpower scheduling research, half a page to telephone operator scheduling research, 2 pages to mass-transit bus/airplane crew scheduling research, and then 4½ pages to NSP research. I suppose we could jumble all of these separate fields of the same problem into a single article, or make them separate pages and link to them from a single article. However, finding an appropriate title is tricky. Here are some possibilities:

"manpower scheduling" gets 1250 results on Google Scholar (315 of which discuss nursing)
"shift scheduling problem" gets 454 results (168 of which discuss nursing)
"employee scheduling problem" gets 349 results (123 of which discuss nursing)
"manpower scheduling problem" gets 118 results
"employee rostering problem" gets 14 results
"computational shift scheduling" gets 1 result
"manpower rostering problem" gets 1 result

I'm not thrilled about that top result since it seems fairly vague. What differences would you expect to see between "manpower scheduling" and schedule (workplace)? I would not guess that "manpower scheduling" would be the name Wikipedia picked for a computer science article. The gender-specific wording is also less than ideal. The second result, "Shift scheduling problem", does seem more like a computer science subject, but it gets fewer results than either of "nurse scheduling problem" or "nurse rostering problem". Still, that's probably the best bet for a top category for this field of research.

The interesting part here is that the combination of those results (2187 total, including the nursing results) is still cited less than the combination of "nurse scheduling problem", "nurse rostering problem" and the nursing citations found in the results above (2460 results, total). Unfortunately, since the articles about the nurse scheduling problem focus so much on nurses, this isn't quite as black-and-white as the traveling salesman problem.

Suggestion: Suppose we keep/merge nurse scheduling problem, make shift scheduling problem, and then link it to nurse scheduling problem? -NorsemanII (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: @Dingo1729: If we'd rather leave NSP the top category for this subject for a while, here's a few comments from research papers describing the general applicability of solutions to the NSP:

"In this paper, we proposed an efficient method for NSP using SA. In this method, a cost matrix is used for transition rule. This approach generated a nurse schedule faster in time and better in quality than traditional SA. Although we have presented this work in terms of nurse scheduling, it should be noticed that the main idea of the approach could be applied to many other scheduling problems." - An Improvement Technique for Simulated Annealing and Its Application to Nurse Scheduling Problem

"The quality of the final results, together with the fact that the indirect GA approach proved to be more flexible and robust than Tabu Search, makes the indirect GA a good choice to solve the nurse-scheduling problem. Its central idea of changing the problem into a permutation problem and then building solutions with a separate decoder can be applied to all constrained scheduling problems. Thus given this success, experiments with similar approaches on other difficult problems, in scheduling and other application areas is an interesting area for further research." - An Indirect Genetic Algorithm for a Nurse Scheduling Problem

"In this paper a method for combining case-based reasoning with a meta-heuristic algorithm has been introduced. ... The repairs in the case-base avoid violating nurse shift preferences wherever possible and so guide the search towards feasible solutions with high nurse satisfaction. ... The incorporation of the case-based repair generation methodology into other constraint satisfaction techniques will also be considered." -A novel approach to finding feasible solutions to personnel rostering problems

The only exception I saw to general application of NSP to the field of employee scheduling, rather than the other way around, was this: "The Nurse Rostering Problem is a subclass of the personnel scheduling problems..." - [Solving the Nurse Rostering Problem]. Other than that, articles I saw either talked about the applicability of the NSP/NRP to nursing, or to other fields, rather than talking about how employee scheduling in other fields could be applied to nursing or elsewhere. I didn't count how many articles I read in total, but I think it was in the ballpark of 15-30.

To draw an analogy, suppose the TSP had been called the Package Delivery Problem. We usually ignore salesmen in TSP because they don't really offer a compelling reason to do significant amounts of research, so we focus on the TSP because of other things, like package delivery. If it were called the Package Delivery Problem, we would see a great deal of research focusing on how the Package Delivery Problem could be used to deliver packages efficiently, because that would actually maintain fairly significant economic interest. We might then see only a handful of articles about how the Package Delivery Problem could be applied to other things, because usually talking about application to package delivery would be enough. In a similar manner, I think that's what we're seeing with the NSP. Since nursing schedules are of significant economic interest already, there isn't as much need to talk about applicability to other fields, even though it does have wide applicability, as shown in those three quotes above. -NorsemanII (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming around to your view. I wasn't aware originally how much Employee scheduling is dominated by Nurse scheduling in the literature. Yes, there should probably be a short article about the more general problem. I'd suggest Employee scheduling problem, but your suggestion of Shift scheduling problem would be OK too. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix per normal editing processes. There are plenty of sources available on this topic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursing in pakistan for a similar example. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Pakistani hospitals also have to schedule their nurses, but Nursing in pakistan doesn't mention that and has absolutely no similarity or connections with this article. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles started out as crap, and both concerned nursing, which is a marginalized field in academia and the subject of systemic bias here. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dingo1729 now I get what you're saying: this is a generic problem, which is named for something, but not about it. I am not against merging this instead, to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Dingo1729 (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

obvious keep Have you guys even bothered to check google scholar? I count thousands of hits for this class of problem. This is a computer science article ultimately, not one about nurses. It it like the Traveling salesman problem. For whatever reason, this particular class of problems is focused on nurses, but arguments that other fields have scheduling issues is MISSING THE POINT (it's like saying "Well, other jobs need to travel for work, so we shouldn't have Traveling salesman problem). Bearian, I must disagree strongly though that this has much of anything at all to do with systemic bias (or nursing for that matter), and you will likely find the vast majority of sources that discuss this couldn't give a sh*t about nurses, they are simply computer scientists trying to find an optimized solution to a technical problem. Nurses is a RED HERRING here folks. Ultimately, the solutions to these scheduling problems may be installed into software and put into hospitals, but my guess is most academics just like studying it because it's an interesting problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an article where much more could be written to expand on the subject? Or is this about it? My first thought is that I could summarize this whole article, as it currently exists, into a couple of short paragraphs and include it in a section on the nursing article and I believe it would get more views there (I know "number of views" isn't necessarily a criterion for article inclusion, but I think it would be more visible there). Bali88 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that much more can be written about it. If you want to put a mention in the Nursing article that would be OK. But it might be more appropriate to mention it in Hospital management. It's sort of peripheral to Nursing. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note I found Nurse_rostering_problem which should be merged into this one, or vice versa. Please join the discussion on the talk page for that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason to SNOW close this - see the intro to this paper, which states the following: "One intricate computational problem still researched today is the Nurse Rostering Problem (NRP). The problem can be defined as finding an (near) optimal allocation of nurses to shifts in a hospital. Quality is measured by the number (and severity) of preference and coverage violations, represented by penalties. Studied for over more than 40 years, the NRP has an extensive literature. Due to its highly constrained nature and large search space, solving a NRP is far from easy." (bolding mine). Come on, do we really need more than that? Extensive literature.... I agree with a TROUT to the nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with nurse rostering problem I'm the author of the nurse rostering problem page. I created that page since I couldn't find the topic on Wikipedia and wasn't aware that the topic went by another name. I've checked Google Scholar to see which of the two terms is more commonly used, and "nurse scheduling problem" gets 1,090 results, while "nurse rostering problem" gets 764 results (Note: The searches were done in quotes, so the searches are considering scholarly articles which literally have those three words in that order).

Based on those search results, there is absolutely enough scholarly research for Wikipedia to host the topic. My version also has cited scholarly references at the very least, so the minimum standards for inclusion on Wikipedia have already been met on that version, even if nurse scheduling problem has citation issues. Since it appears that "nurse scheduling problem" is the more common phrasing, it seems that "nurse scheduling problem" should be the title that Wikipedia uses for the topic, and "Nurse Rostering Problem" should become a redirect. In terms of keeping everything referenced, most of the text on nurse scheduling problem is redundant, and the text which isn't redundant is uncited. It may be less work to just merge the working external links from nurse scheduling problem into nurse rostering problem, and then move nurse rostering problem to nurse scheduling problem. -NorsemanII (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NorsemanII:, since you seem to know this space, would you mind just doing the merge per WP:BOLD, I don't think we need to wait. That would instantly strengthen this article that is up for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Obiwankenobi: I've finished moving the non-redundant content from nurse scheduling problem to nurse rostering problem, and also improved the page a little bit. I am unable to directly complete the move myself, so I think we'll need an administrator for that. -NorsemanII (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks looks much better. I agree with your earlier findings, that this should live at Nurse scheduling problem, but the article at Nurse rostering problem should be moved there. Once this closes I can make it so with help from an admin.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge. This is a model problem in operations research and computer science, similar in spirit to the traveling salesman problem and the bin packing problem. As Obi-Wan Kenobi noted, this has been around for decades. This paper is a bibliographic survey showing the extensive research done on the problem. The topic is highly notable. The article itself has problems with lack of references and I agree with the others that a merge with the nurse rostering problem will create a stronger single article. But these are surmountable problems and, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, such articles should be improved, not deleted. A highly notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with dupe article dedicated to the topic, Nurse rostering problem. The AfD appears to have been requested under the misapprehension that this has anything to do with nurses. They are purely an example used to illustrate a complex and important reasoning problem, which has had many practical applications, and has been the topic of a great deal of major research. Leondz (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 04:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Essex Court[edit]

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

Clearly just promotional material for a business. Would have listed it for speedy deletion under WP:G11, but it survived that process in 2010 somehow. Richard75 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ORG as one of UK's most notable and widely covered chambers.► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the leading chambers in London so no justification for deleting it. The other top chambers all have pages, see Blackstone Chambers, Brick Court Chambers, Essex Court Chambers and Fountain Court Chambers. If you want to improve it and make it less promotional you could add details of members, recent cases and news articles AJ (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a separate issue. I'm not saying it's not notable, but that's no answer to whether the article is merely self-promotional or not. As for "fix it yourself," the problem with this article was first flagged up four years ago, so the article creator has had enough time to fix it -- why do you think it is now my responsibility all of a sudden? You fix it yourself. Richard75 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added some information and references, which provide some further perspective on the chambers. I don't see how you can say the article is purely self-promotional - it lists several straightforward facts such as how many members it has, how many silks and what the pupillage award is - all the sort of information someone may want to know about it. Really there's no justification for deleting this entry and I can't see why you want to. AJ (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. deleted per WP:CSD#G7 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanis-model[edit]

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

Seems to be an abstract of someone's PhD research project. Not at all clear why this is notable, no examples of commercial or other use. Just another piece of research Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just someone's PhD project. --Jakob (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I flagged the same article for speedy deletion earlier as it was copied from a webpage (sorry for forgetting the URL), but this time copying and pasting phrases in quotes does not yield any exact matches. This article seems very similar to its previous incarnation, so the creator may have just changed a few words to prevent copyvio detection.
Edit: The old Mantanis-model article was created by a different user, Mantanis (talk) (contribs). The logs state that the account Papadopoulos-Antonios (talk) (contribs) (the creator of the current article) was created just 1 day ago (March 10^th). I have informed Papadopoulos-Antonios (talk) (contribs) about this, and I suspect that his account was created to disassociate the new article from the speedied one. Passengerpigeon (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. Blanked by page creator. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn C. Phillips[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO notability (not one of the major listed stars of the films in which he acted, I'm not finding any independent in-depth reporting about him; "most well known" and "known for" aren't supported and being "most something" among smalltime things isn't a notability point itself). Unresolved tags for notability and BLP-sources for 6 months. DMacks (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see where you're coming from. I may have created the article, but I'd be alright if it was to be deleted. --Matthew (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly a bad faith nomination by a now blocked sock puppet. Any discussion here will always fall back to a discussion about the nominator. Anyone wishing to renominate this page should not consider this close an endorsement of the article's suitability for Wikipedia. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com[edit]

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

This is a non notable website. Fails GNG since it lacks the requisite "substantial coverage" prong and "multiple reliable sources." The substantial coverage requirement is failing more. There are multiple passing mentions yes, but not substantial coverage. Multiple passing mentions do not "add up" to substantial coverage. That is an important distinction. This page has been deleted before for failing GNG. The second AFD was "no consensus" due to persistent disruptive users rallying support for the article even though it has no substantial coverage, re "I like it" and claiming that the article was somehow "under attack." These are not reasons to keep an article contra policy. GNG. Jojo Fiver (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nomination by probable sockpuppet with no substantial editing history. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator has been banned now. --ChessFiends (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK #3: the nominator has been identified as the sock of a banned user, and no substantive comments have been added to this page that would be a basis for keeping this AfD open. As mentioned at WP:SK, this nomination page may also be subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G5. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biorecro[edit]

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

promotional article for minor company. Just "one of the finalists". The WWF "award" is one of 5 or 6 listings each year, DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Participants are correct about the long-standing precedent regarding high schools. I will note that it would be nice if the article mentioned same. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jhuruli Adarsha Vidyapith[edit]

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

Article about a school with no indication of notability or importance. After looking up the school, I was unable to find information indicating that this school is a high school (which would immediately qualify it for notability). APerson (talk!) 18:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per entry 466 of this list made by the Department of School Education, Government of West Bengal, the school is categorized as high school. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, verified secondary school, which are kept per long-standing consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics (metal band)[edit]

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

A speed/thrash/power metal band. They only released their self published record, The Master Plan. They never completed the second and there is no mention of Beautiful Day ...For A War. Italian based Minotauro records did re-release a box set. Minotauro is a small, private label. I'm unable to find any reliable refs, but their name is common. The best info I found about the band is a message from vocalist Steve Gaines. Bgwhite (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You might also consider nominating Abattoir (band) for deletion for the same reason, since it seems to be wholly unnotable too. Jinkinson talk to me 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This band is a vital part of the Los Angeles metal scene, and therefore should remain on Wikipedia....look TACTICS rich history of members that have gone on to success. A vital part of speed /thrash metal history. Caryn Davis

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Snowboard Tour[edit]

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

Article lacks any cited sources. External links are all affiliated with the subject. Article thus fails WP:V. Subject might be notable but there is no verifiable evidence in the article and a Google failed to produce anything that rings the notability bell. Article was tagged PROD which was subsequently removed along with maintenance tags, without comment or improvement by the IP creator. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. it's usually a sign of lack of notability when an article's only references are the organisation's web site, Twitter, and Facebook, but I searched on Google for more evidence. The earliest hits on a Google search were such things as I found the organisation's web site, this Wikipedia article, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc: not a good sign, as notable subjects usually get something more significant within the first few hits. I checked the few pages that looked more promising. Some of them appeared to be pages mentioning the words "world snowboard tour", but not about this organisation, others were not substantial coverage or not in reliable independent source, and in most cases both of those applied. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IBA World Tour[edit]

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

Article lacks any cited sources. External links are all affiliated with the subject. Article thus fails WP:V. Subject might be notable but there is no verifiable evidence in the article and a Google failed to produce anything that rings the notability bell. Article was tagged PROD which was subsequently removed without comment or improvement by the IP creator. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, wither in the article or anywhere else, as far as I can see. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639-1 language matrix[edit]

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

Already copied to Wikiversity ([4]), but this doesn't seem to qualify for speedy deletion as per WP:A5. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 639-1 language matrix. Specifically, though the information may be useful to linguists, translators, or others, there is no context explaining the standard or the languages named here. The "matrix" is of no apparent use to readers of an encyclopedia qua encyclopedia. Since it has been copied to Wikiversity, deletion from Wikipedia seems in the spirit of the earlier deletion discussion. Cnilep (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russiasm[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism possibly combined with original research. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unsourced, offensive text about non-notable neologism Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Attack page and WP:NEO. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to total lack of any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that this expression is in use. The article seems to be an attempt to spread a word that has been made up, quite possibly by the creator of the article. The king of the sun (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, pending re-creation at a later time if the word catches on. Right now, it smells of soap. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any use of the term used this way in reliable sources. SchreiberBike talk 21:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ligava Ring[edit]

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

Non-notable Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - I haven't researched what else exists on wikipedia covering Latvian culture, but I think an entry about this item (with sources) could fit very well on wikipedia on a page devoted to historical Latvian clothing/culture. However, it's not significant enough to have a stand alone page and the article, as-is, is completely unsourced. Bali88 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is not about historical Latvian clothing/culture, it looks to be a made up marketing story for certain type of rings, which are based on jewelry found in archaeological excavations. Seems though this legend hasn't gained enough notability to warrant inclusion. The rings themselves are common item for sale on crafts markets, but they have no special symbolism or anything that would set them apart from other sorts of jewelry ~~Xil (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TransparentBusiness[edit]

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

Non notable start up, whose name was promotionally added as a link to many articles. The only question is the Forbes article--reading it, I conclude it's PR based, and was written due to the significance of the founders husband in his many other enterprises (he does not seem to be directly involved with this one). . DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Moschini's husband Alex Konanykhin was listed as the CEO when the company started up in 2012. But I think the preponderance of articles on the company, coming from Latin America, including the Forbes, is because that's where Moschini's PR base is. See below. Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage in KMGi Group is more than enough. I can find nothing to indicate the significance of this company after the initial flurry of PR-based articles as it was starting up in early 2012. It's quite noticeable that the WP article was started shortly after the company sought to market 8.5 million of its shares at $1.00 each (minimum investment $250,000) in May 2012 [5] and after another arm of the KMGi Group, Publicty Guaranteed had done their work: "Our experienced writers prepare an effective promotional article for you. Once you have approved the article, our media relations team works to get your article published in newspapers and magazines by distributing your article via syndicated news services and by pitching reporters and editors.". Note that the Forbes article is limited to the Forbes Argentina edition, ditto the "award" from PC World's Latin America edition. The link to the "award" is broken. The Forbes Argentina article is clearly PR-based. Note that although it was published in August 2012, it was obviously written several months earlier when the company was just starting up: "“We are opening a round for institutional investment”, says Moschini. The objective is to get a $2 million investment in the coming months and to start the global deployment. Later, they will look for a new round to get $8 million and to reach business value at over $25 million so that their dream of a ubiquitous and flexible company may come true." - Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Forest Group (2nd nomination) instead. Thanks. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 10:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Forest Group[edit]

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

Group no longer seems to be active. The references date from the 1990s. Its notability, even from that time, is questionable. The group just seems to have been a loose affiliation of people working in similar industries, and not any sort of formal group. U2fanboi (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is this not properly transcluded? Bearian (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno, I listed it on March 10, I thought I had gone through the process correctly. U2fanboi (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll attempt to add it again.U2fanboi (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody help on this - I added it to today's list but the item title is not showing up.U2fanboi (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaveau Island (Massachusetts)[edit]

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

There is no such thing as Leaveau Island. Please don't create articles based on a Wikipedia list without checking first whether the list is correct or not. Perhaps it's a typo, perhaps it's a mistake or a hoax, but that's the responsability of the article creator, who has made similar errors in the recent past already. Fram (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--a google search turned up nothing. Bali88 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't all my responsibility, it is also whoever is adding the things to the lists on the page to make sure it is real. If there are this many fake things on lists, this needs to be worked on.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What lists are you talking about? Bali88 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, probably List of islands of Massachusetts. In the previous case of Bobinarsha Orton City, Hawaii, he created it twice because it was on Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Requested Articles. I then noted on his talk page, at the end of the discussion, "I've deleted it again. If you recreate this again, you will be blocked. It is your responsability to make sure that a subject of a requested article really exists and warrants an article. Fram (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)" It doesn't seem like Old Time Music Fan takes that responsability seriously. Fram (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well if that's the case...just because someone requests an article doesn't mean it's acceptable. It's your responsibility to check this before creating. I looked through Old Time Music's history and there are several articles about non-notable geographic locations. They will most likely be deleted, FYI. Bali88 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i should quit because everyone here is rude to me and no-one has ever helped me or said anything nice. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like some help, let me know. I apologize if you have gotten a cold welcome. Why don't you start with some smaller edits or work on something in your sandbox and get some feedback on them before moving them into article space. You will develop a better idea of what is expected of wikipedia :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller edits?--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to creating new pages, you could find articles that need sources and improve the sources. Fix grammar and spelling, improve working, etc. until you get used to how wikipedia works. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:V. Google searches only get Wikipedia and its mirrors. USGS GNIS has no record of anything named Leaveau in Massachusetts. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Quite aside from that this is a spurious "location," the article makes no assertion of notability. Ravenswing 01:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3. Blatant and obvious hoax. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't exist. --Oakshade (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Jat clans of Lahore Division[edit]

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

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. A similarly-sourced and formatted article from the same creator was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division. Sitush (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Sitush, I for one am sort of on the fence on this one. Could you perhaps comment on the article in light of WP:LSC? And do you think this falls into WP:INDISCRIMINATE? This might help clarify the article's notability or appropriate-ness (word?) for myself and others who are 50-50 about the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MezzoMezzo:, I think the lead's own acknowledgement of meaninglessness pretty much sums it up. The list fails LSC at the most basic level because the sources are not reliable, as noted in my nomination and as discussed at the prior AfD for a related list that used the same format, criteria and type of source. That unreliability has been the consensus for a long time now and can be traced at least as far back as James Tod. The Raj administrators knew very little about caste and tried to impose their misunderstandings on the populace as a means of control post-1857; their views on the shapes and sizes of noses, skin colour charts etc were arguably even more bizarre and their slavish acceptance of the biassed advice of Brahmins didn't help either. The combination of these and other things led to a jostling for position among the population that has subsequently been identified as sanskritisation. The list is an example of systemic failure that affected, at that time, around 700 million people; and that failure is a (perhaps the) primary cause of all the present-day problems relating to caste, including those on Wikipedia that led to the introduction of WP:GS/Caste.

Yes, it also falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE: it is verifiable only to its unreliable and highly POV-oriented primary sources. And because of those, it is also statistically confusing. Any notability is as an example of Raj crassness and such issues are better covered in other articles in a more rounded manner, as indeed they are. One day, I may even write an article specifically on the subject of the crassness - it is well-documented - but it won't be this thing. Sitush (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's merely a list, lists serve as a glossary or index, wouldn't hurt to keep it, shouldn't lose that information. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad, we had this discussion before and you participated in it. Information that is based on unreliable sources is not in fact information that we retain on Wikipedia. As last time, you seem not to understand the requirements of notability and reliable sources. Perhaps you should try to read the policies, as has also been suggested to you before. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally, I do lean toward delete now based on the reply from Sitush. The lead admits that the census isn't even reliable, so even using it as a source in the census of India article after this article's deletion might not work out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nestwiki (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Majura (district). Apparently no prejudice against recreation should its situation substantially situation change. slakr^\ talk / 06:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Majura Solar Farm[edit]

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

Page is purely speculation, based on a 2013 Development proposal. I have searched for updated sources, but the most recent articles seem to be from April 2013, with none giving any indication the project has been approved. Article is essentially WP:CRYSTALBALL and lacks notability through detailed coverage beyond local news reports in The Canberra Times and a minor note about an objection from Canberra Airport as the site is directly under flight path. I would support a selective merge to mention the proposal as part of the article Majura Parkway as the road construction has made the land available. Dfadden (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dfadden (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does not have enough information to keep it on wikipedia. So I suggest deletion of the article unless it is expanded by others. Unatnas1986 (talk) 15:17, 2 March 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. When this was first reported there was no reason to believe it was not a serious proposal, but no mention has been made of it for months. I suggest it be redirected to Majura (district) and possibly be recreated if it precedes.--Grahame (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grahamec - if it ever actually gets approved and built, then maybe that would be a time to have an article. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul O'Reilly-Hyland[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The "Recognition" from Irish America is not a significant award. Sourced to Organisation websites, listings, primary pieces and PR. None of the sources are independent reliable sources that provide ant depth of coverage about O'Reilly-Hyland. A search found nothing better. See related afds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ounavarra Foundation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joelle Wyser-Pratte duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete WP:NOTRESUME. suspiciously created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability. Reads very self-promotion-y. Snappy (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. Rounding to merge, as consensus at the target is free to determine what, if anything, should be included in the main article (i.e., either way, this becomes a redirect). slakr^\ talk / 06:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra (Six Flags Discovery Kingdom)[edit]

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

Does not meet requirements for notability. It lacks coverage in reliable sources, and lacks "enduring" historical significance. GoneIn60 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. Not notable enough for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 1 March 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 12:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect as MelanieN suggested. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Gubarev[edit]

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

Not impotant person in Ukrainian politic.--AlexusUkr (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per above. Absolutely unimportant. --Elvis (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[[Category:]][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Not an important person in Ukrainian politics" I would argue the opposite. He is the leader of the pro-Russian protest movement in Donetsk, the AFP even calls him the "symbol of east Ukraine separatism" [6] --Tocino 01:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does seem to have become prominent in the current crisis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable figure in the pro-Russian movement in eastern Ukraine. --Bruzaholm (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To one of the protest related articles. He's really a small player, just a self-proclaimed figurehead, only appeared in the news starting on March 1.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable figure. 1, 2. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a prominent leader of the Russian Spring. Óðinn (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ukranian nazi contradict themselves when deal with this "unimportant" (actually, the most popular figure in the Eastern Ukraine, aka Novorossia, as opposed to the Yacenuk/Klichko/Tagnibok, who are not supported by Maidan yet used it to seize power in the capital). I propose to delete those two nazis who nominated this page for deletion. --Javalenok (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling me a nazi? That's how insane the rhetoric is in Ukraine right now, to be honest. Come delete me, snothead!! lol.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says "though not a major player in local politics". He may later become such, but he is not yet. This article is a case of too soon. The attacks on those who have made the nomination violate multiple Wikipedia rules, and should lead to some sort of censure for Javalenok.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though marginal, he became notable when he and his Russian Nazis occupied the RSA in Donetsk and then he was arrested. Criminals qualify for notability if there is enough media coverage.--Львівське (говорити) 00:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether you approve of him or not, he's a very important figure in the current Ukraine chaos.Haberstr (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobina sadat atashi[edit]

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

This is an article about a child actress without any evidence of notability. The only source cited as a reference does not go any significant way towards establishing notability, to judge by this Google translation. There are also two external links. One of them is to a site called MyDramaList, which allows anyone to create content. (From the site's "about us" page: "MyDramaList.com’s goal is to provide Asian drama/movie fans a site where they can create their very own dramalists...") The other is IMDb. Apart from the fact that IMDb is a non-reliable source, and gives no evidence of notability as it is indiscriminate in who it includes, the full and unabridged content of its biography of Mobina Atashi is "Mobina Atashi is an actress, known for Migren (2012), Gharibeh (2012) and Amaliyate Mahde Koodak (2012)": scarcely substantial coverage.

From a Google search for "Mobina Sadat Atashi" the first hits were: three on Wikipedia, one on Wikidata, three archived copies of MyDramaList (mentioned above), a blog, a copy of the Wikipedia article on a mirror site, a picture of her uploaded to a file-sharing site, and so on... From a similar search omitting her middle name, i.e. "Mobina Atashi" I got a page telling me just her name and the fact that she is a child actress, and nothing else, several pages on IMDb, some of which contained no content at all (e.g. the page "News for Mobina Atashi" did not have any news about her to list), a page telling me her name and the fact that she is an actress, and nothing else, etc etc. I tried a Google search for her name in Persian, "مبینا سادات آتشی". All but three of the first page of hits had either "blog" or "forum" in the URL. I looked at the three exceptions, and found (1) another blog, which doesn't happen to have "blog" in its URL, but does in the page tile, and in any case consists of just pictures someone has uploaded, including one picture of her, (2) a video that someone has uploaded, (3) a page with two sentences about her.

Two days ago I mentioned the need for better sources as evidence of notability to the account that created the article (on that account's talk page) and to the account that posted on my talk page about it (on my talk page), but no such better sources have been provided.

The conclusion of all this is that there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to even remotely suggest notability by Wikipedia standards.

Although it is not part of the reason for deletion, it may be helpful to mention a little of the background to this article and this deletion nomination. The article was previously tagged with a PRODBLP, which was removed after one inadequate source had been added. It was later given a PROD, which was removed without explanation. I made a previous AfD nomination, and then the editor who had removed the PROD posted to my talk page, suggesting that the subject was notable, and that PROD had been placed there by a vandal. I withdrew the AfD nomination, to allow a chance for evidence of notability to be provided, and also to allow myself time to check the vandalism accusation. I found that the account which created the article (Sorudeh), the account which removed the PRODBLP (ویشکا), and the account that removed the PROD (Nazaninan) and made the vandalism accusation are all blocked on Persian Wikipedia for sockpuppetry, and Persian Wikipedia article about Mobina Sadat Atashi has been repeatedly deleted, and now salted. The editor who was accused of vandalism (Nojan) is the Persian Wikipedia administrator who deleted the article and blocked the accounts for sockpuppetry. The account that made the vandalism accusation has now posted to my talk page several times. It is difficult to understand much of what he/she says, because of difficulty with English, but the essential substance seems to be that Nojan is a vandal whose actions are motivated by malice towards Sorudeh, ویشکا, and Nazaninan. I have been able to find no evidence to support that accusation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mister ,Honestly, I As the author of this article I do not know What should I say!Perhaps the reason for this discussion This is being disputed.I just hope Here is justice.As in Persian Wikipedia No matter The opposition thereto.And acts of personal taste!I am grateful to you Allowing that to this article The source added.But unfortunately Another Persian Articles resembling Shahrokh Estakhri and Siavash Kheirabi Have similar problems.I ask you They also Also be bihaved.tanks(Sorudeh (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This actress is not yet notable. She may become notable at some future time, and have significant coverage, but as of yet she lacks such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dipnarine Maharaj[edit]

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

Article written by now banned promotional sockpuppet. No notability--the statement that he is a leading expert comes only from the blurb for his own book. Other references are press releases, or local publicity DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of around 10 in this highly cited field does not give a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Sources likewise not impressive. Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The sources look like local news articles and other similar-quality publications that do not convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. And comparing his cites (100, 61, 51, etc on Google scholar) to the top-cited papers in stem cell transplant research (1115, 713, etc) makes the claim in the article that he's a leading expert in this area seem overblown. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 04:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazario Chávez Aliaga[edit]

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

Offers no indication of notability, no sources, nothing, really. Alex (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google books search shows that he wrote several books in Spanish and is discussed in many others. The article about him on Spanish Wikipedia indicates that he played a leading role in the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance, one of Peru's major political parties, and held high government positions on several occasions. He was also a university professor, a newspaper publisher and a published poet. I am confident that a Spanish speaking editor could improve and reference the article quite easily. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True that the article asserts these things, but it has no WP:RS that demonstrates them. Agricola44 (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just publishing books is not enough. We need ample evidence that they have been noted by others. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There's no assertion of notability in the article. He has indeed published quite a few books, but WorldCat shows paltry institutional holdings for each one. Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Changing position to Keep. I've checked JSTOR and the Taylor article discusses Aliaga at length. Kudos to GreenC. I think editing has also fixed the assertion of notability, so this article is acceptable, in my opinion. Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The Spanish Wikipedia article (translated) asserts he was a politician and served in some high offices. True the existing content is a poor stub, but AfD is a topic-level discussion not content-level. There is good evidence this is a notable topic per POLITICIAN and perhaps other things too. -- GreenC 00:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the sources in the Spanish WP article seems to be a single piece of personal correspondence from Aliaga. Agricola44 (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Lewis Taylor writes in "The Origins of APRA in Cajamarca, 1928-1935" (Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 19, No. 4, Oct., 2000) that Nazario Chávez Aliaga was "Prominent among the individuals who propounded [revolutionary] ideas .. who in 1930 would appear as the first General Secretary of APRA (American Popular Revolutionary Alliance) in Cajamarca and play a key role in building up the party apparatus.." Further, the newspaper he founded El Peru, "would soon become the most prestigious press organ in the northern sierra, which not only brought status to its owner [Chávez Aliaga], but also invested him with social and political influence." -- GreenC 05:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability seems clear from the Spanish article and be clearest in terms of political office. 1956 Secretario General de la Presidencia de la República. And Green Cardamom seems to me to have it right. I think we need more work not deletion. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC))::: This article - Taylor, L. (2000). The origins of APRA in Cajamarca, 1928–1935⋆. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 19(4), 437-459. has a subtantial amount on Chávez Aliaga clearly inidcating notability. Have added this ref and another less reliable and a note. Hope it helps (Msrasnw (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

He might also have a street and a cultural museum named after him http://ofi.mef.gob.pe/appFD/Hoja/VisorDocs.aspx?file_name=10530_OPIMPSPABLO_20121017_1736.pdf and http://www.datosperu.org/tb-normas-legales-oficiales-2004-Septiembre-24-09-2004-pagina-43.php Msrasnw (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rural marketing[edit]

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

I tried to source, and I failed. 400 Lux (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to just be a violation of WP:NOTAD turned into something that reads more like a vague encyclopedia article. Even if we could find a legitimate source, I'd say transwiki to Wiktionary at best. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concept appears to be at least discussed in India, but I agree this page is WP:NOTAD, to include previous contributors spamming user talk pages about a magazine about rural marketing. If the topic is notable in India and someone finds reliable sources they can always start over. C1776M ^Talk 23:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a clear and concise topic enough to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- albeit regretably. While this could be a good topic, this mess is not an article but rather, spam. For example, political marketing is different in urban versus rural markets (heavy TV ad rotation versus mailers and free giveaways like sponges with candidates' names). I'd be willing to userfy this if requested on the record. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banner carrier (Commercial Aviation)[edit]

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

The term "banner carrier" seems to be an invention of the article's author. Google search results show the only relevant matches seem to be Wikipedia and Wiktionary. None of the cited articles use the term either, the closest seems to be things like ...regional jets that will fly the US Airways Express banner under the airline's new and wholly owned MidAtlantic Airways commuter subsidiary in [7]. Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. These are already covered by Virtual airline (economics), Regional airlines and brands. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey V, "support" deletion, right? Stalwart111 05:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 06:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but I don't think it was the invention of the article's author. "Banner carrier" is industry jargon, is it not? It seems to be in fairly wide casual use in industry blogs and forums. That's not enough for a Wikipedia article, of course, but I don't think it was bad-faith. Stalwart111 05:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Vegaswikian. It may be "industry jargon", but not in this part of the world. I have been in this game since the 1980s and have never heard the term until I saw it here - and I regularly read industry Journals such as Low-Fare & Regional Airlines. Perhaps it's an American industry term, but there are very few mentions that I can find. It seems to me to be the same thing as the far-more-common terms "franchise airline" and "airline franchise", and the article in question even alludes to this. I don't support renaming this to a something containing "franchise", because there's nothing worth rescuing here - it's some very tenuous "refs" (Airliners.net photos with uploader-written captions that don't even contain the word "Banner", and chat forums? Please.) cobbled together; in an exercise in synthesis and original research. YSSYguy (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others, clearly doesnt add anything to the encyclopedia not covered by the other articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musgrave family[edit]

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

much copy/paste from unreliable sources written in archaic English but no assertion of any acts rendering any notability provided Crusoe8181 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is more a genealogical post than an encyclopedic article. A lot of the content isn't even in proper sentence form and looks like a direct copy and paste from family history sources. It is well established in AfD that Wikipedia is not a genealogical forum and only a very few families have inherent notability. Think royalty and greater hereditary noble families (like the Peerage of Great Britain). Most of the people mentioned in this article seem to be there merely by virtue of having existed and having the same last name. This article, as is far too common with genealogical articles, runs afoul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is just no evident notability for most of the people in this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prominent noble family in the north of England like the Percy family. They are covered in sources such as The history and antiquities of the counties of Westmorland and Cumberland and The Beauties of England and Wales and so are notable per WP:GNG. The age of the sources is unimportant in establishing notability because notability does not expire: "Notability is not temporary; 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." In any case, it is easy to find modern sources too such as Border Liberties and Loyalties: North-east England, C.1200 - C.1400. Andrew (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Noble? may say so in article, but all I can see are lords of manors (commoners). All persons mentioned in the pipe rolls are notable? Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, a prominent historic house with multiple notable members, most of whom do not yet have articles. Not quite at the Percy level, but, like the Percys, a source of legend and Child ballads. As usual for this sort of article, the present text needs to be expanded with the proper use of modern sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment multiple notable members. name two, with articles, please, to satisfy multiple. most of whom do not, infers some do, so who are they? Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To start with, we have Richard, Philip, Christopher, Philip and Richard. Andrew (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Changing my vote on the basis of Andrew's comment above. There does appear to be enough notability in the family for an article, although this one needs serious work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 02:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy about media coverage of the 2009 Greek debt crisis[edit]

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

POV essay -- note the section "4. Inaccuracies and stereotyping". An article written on this basis is not NPOV, and I think this is unfixable. See the article's talk p. for further discussion. � DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - While some of this information could fit very well into wikipedia, it should not have its own page. The relevant information should be summarized and rewritten to a NPOV and included in Greek government-debt crisis.
Delete and or Merge with qualification. As the editor who first tagged this for NPOV obviously I concur that it fails encyclopedic neutrality. I also have serious doubts that this is fixable. But I would be willing to reconsider if the article's creator wants to take a stab at a major rewrite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hopeless POV essay. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An essay which really can't be made into an encyclopedia article. But the authors have worked hard to assemble a remarkably long list of references. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the article suffered more from OR than POV and edited it down to just the content that was supported by secondary sources that discussed media bias. Please review the results and reconsider your !votes. I am neutral on the outcome with very slight lean towards merge. Joja lozzo 02:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pruning, but I'm still going with "delete". The title says "Controversy" but can there really be a controversy when there is only one side and the other side who believe that the media coverage wasn't particularly biased don't bother to reply? (Well, no more biased than any other news.) The article would be more aptly titled Complaining about media coverage of the 2009 Greek debt crisis and that makes it clear that this isn't worth an encyclopedia article. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 02:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic sustainable development[edit]

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

Overly promotional, and I can't see how to reduce it , or that it is more than borderline notable enough for a separate article. "many leading experts"; jargon; references only to the proponent's own work; multiple links to this article from every conceivable topic; written by an obvious COI author "SSDconsult"; and the main content is the Advantages section, which by its very nature is pure advertising. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation, perhaps by a non-COI editor. This appears to be a fairly clear case of WP:PROMO as asserted by the nom. Only two sources are cited both of which fail WP:RS due to POV. The subject is probably notable, but this article is just not salvageable. It would have to be rewritten more or less from scratch to get it up to snuff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a group of organizations. Difficult to argue to keep, unless it passes notability, which is doubtful. It's not encyclopedic. They should copy this off wiki, to their own website. Invested editors should work on a related article instead. Agree with above. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 02:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of Extreme[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this project, apparently fails WP:BAND. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by article creator:

"Do Not Delete" There is plenty evidence of notability. This page has multiple links to many notable figures on wikipedia. Voices of Extreme has had much exposure with many notable bands and people. It is not an advertisement , it is an article on a notable band. For example, Red Lamb, Nicko McBrain, Iron Maiden, Dan Spitz, Anthrax, Godsmack, Disturbed, Alice in Chains, Buckcherry, and the Dropkick Murphys. Here are some references :

Harris, Stina Marie. "INTERVIEW and VIDEO PREMIERE: VOICES OF EXTREME (V.O.X.)". rockrevoltmagazine.com. Retrieved 2013. "NICKO MCBRAIN-Managed Band VOICES OF EXTREME To Release Second Album Read more at http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/nicko-mcbrain-managed-band-voices-of-extreme-to-release-second-album/#9VTHDKJf42jqRL6Z.99". Blabbermouth.net. Retrieved July 9th, 2010.

Mosqueda, Ruben. "VOICES OF EXTREME BREAK THE SILENCE Released 2010 (Nicko McBrain Entertainment)". Sleaze Roxx. Retrieved October, 2010.
"Interview with Don Chaffin of V.O.X.". Danielle Boise. Retrieved October 14, 2013.
"Content Manager". Metal Underground. Retrieved 2011-06-15.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdonadio04 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could put the current article text on your userpage, so if they do become notable, you can retrieve your work so far. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure this meets notability guidelines. Bali88 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. See WP:BAND. Sources fail WP:RS as affiliated and or trivial. A Google turned up mostly promotional hits with a few trivial non-RS stuff on the side. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If their record label isn't notable enough for an article and none of their opening gigs bear mention in newspapers or magazines somewhere, then they don't meet WP:BAND. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This Noisecreep article [8] offers the best in terms of coverage I could find; not convinced there is enough material in additional reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 00:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not delete~~ - I listed a bunch of websites and articles that have Voices of Extreme discussed and interviewed multiple times. I do not understand why this article does not meet the notability guidelines. Their album, Hypocrite was produced by famous guitar play Dan Spitz of the famous band Anthrax. Don Chaffin the lead singer of Voices of Extreme is also the lead vocalist for the band Red Lamb who is listed in your encyclopedia. Dan Spitz and Anthrax are also listed in your encyclopedia. We would like to know what other information you need to resolve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdonadio04 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negating duplicate vote by Gdonadio04. Please feel free to comment as often as you like in an AfD discussion, but only one vote is allowed. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that their producer and/or some of their members are notable on their own doesn't add up to notability for the band itself. It may be more appropriate at this point in time to redirect to one of their pages and have a section containing all this info on that page. Can you prove notability in terms of album sales? That might help things. :-) Bali88 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes I understand what you are saying but I don't think wikipedia is dependent on album sales. These gentlemen are very experienced for the last 20 years. They are working on their third album now. There's plenty of website articles that highlight Voices of Extreme. For example : http://www.bravewords.com/news/207813 , http://www.dangerdog.com/2010-music-reviews/voices-of-extreme-break-the-silence-review.php#.UyNMGnlM7wJ , http://www.metalville.de/voices-of-extreme.html , http://noisecreep.com/voices-of-extreme-break-the-silence-song/ , http://rockrevoltmagazine.com/voices-of-extreme-interview-videopremiere/ , http://ytsejam.com/2010/08/interview-with-voices-of-extreme-vocalist-don-chaffin/ , http://www.musicnewsnashville.com/voices-extreme-vox-new-album-break-silence-today/ , http://www.sleazeroxx.com/bands/voicesofextreme/breakthesilence.shtml , http://heavymetal.about.com/b/2013/11/09/5-questions-with-voices-of-extreme-2.htm , http://www.seaoftranquility.org/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=9439 , http://punkworldviews.com/top-10-projectsperformances-voices-of-extreme/ , http://flashwounds.com/2013/10/03/voices-of-extreme-vox-releases-new-lyric-video-for-numb-via-rock-revolt-magazine/ , http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/iron-maiden-drummer-to-appear-at-voices-of-extreme-show-in-massachusetts-tonight/ , http://targetaudiencemagazine.com/interview-with-don-chaffin-of-v-o-x/ , http://www.dangerdog.com/2010-music-reviews/voices-of-extreme-break-the-silence-review.php#.UyNPCnlM7wI . If you could take a moment to review those links i'm sure it will clarify things. In addition, playing with notable people is what makes other people notable, I don't know how else you would describe someone as notable. They have a lot of exposure with bands like Alice in Chains, Disturbed, Buckcherry, the Dropkick Murphy's....and many others. Furthermore, they do have their albums and songs selling online : http://www.amazon.com/Hypocrite/dp/B0029RUWTG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1377046120&sr=8-2&keywords=voices+of+extreme+hypocrite , https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/hypocrite/id316442420. Thank you, please let me know if you need any further clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.171.254 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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