Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 March	18 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 speedy delete (A7) by User:Orangemike. Gong show 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Kaiser (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Spam articles created by a promotional account named for the PR firm which represents this company and its owner. No claims of notability, no references both articles read like advertisements. RadioFan (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the reasons listed above:

Delete the existing articles right now as advertisements. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:16, 17 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. Pretty clear spam, so I've speedied it under WP:G11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoodies[edit]

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

This is a self-promoting page with failure to consider NPOV. The style of the text felt out of character for wikipedia, and it was this feeling that led me to google some phrases from this article. The page is almost entirely a duplication of text that can be found on the website for the umbrella company for neighborhoodies.

See the final entry at UA Brands to find the content that has been effectively reproduced here.

This article deviates from the style that is typical for wikipedia articles and appears to be more in line with marketing-style writing. The article contains so little actual objective, non-promotional style writing, that I believe it would be best to remove it outright. I like neighborhoodies as a company, but I believe this practice of duplicating the company's own summary should not be rewarded, either by allowing that summary to persist or by doing the work of rewriting the content should have been more neutrally constructed from the start. Aschauer (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising. Without even looking to see it can be sppedied as copyvio.TheLongTone (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as unambiguous advertising, per TheLongTone and per Aschauer's nomination. --do ncr am 01:37, 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 speedy close: wrong venue. Take it to WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ₆an⁶sh₆ 22:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madeleine D. Lewis[edit]

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

Personal joke page DBaK (talk) 21:46, 17 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 14:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Thomas (photographer)[edit]

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

Long-term unsourced BLP, no evidence of WP:BASIC presented. I found a few passing mentions of him (e.g., http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-220033728.html), but I have not seen substantial, third-party sourcing. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm surprised this hasn't been speedy deleted a long time ago. Admittedly he left home when he was 16 so has had time to establish himself, but I can't see any solid examples of coverage about him. As he is a professional photographer it's not surprising he gets images published, but that is part of his job and not a justification for a Wikipedia profile. Sionk (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON at best. Mabalu (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom, even the article cited by Joe does not mention Thomas in relation to his notability as a photographer. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't we have WP:NOTMODELMAYHEM? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nothing in the article shows notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 22 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 List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 17:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. merely confirms address and existence, there is no inherent notability to embassies. Also nominating, note none have bilaterals to direct to

Embassy of Tanzania, Riyadh
Consulate General of Tanzania, Dubai
Embassy of Tanzania, Brussels
Embassy of Tanzania, Rome
Embassy of Tanzania, The Hague LibStar (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. Pburka (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, considering the extent of Swedish-Tanzanian relations, and the longstanding and broad Swedish aid programmes for Tanzania, this might be notable. Also possible that 1970s assistance to Southern Africa liberation movements were channeled through the embassy. I'll try to check for more refs on this, perhaps later in the week. --Soman (talk) 13:32, 26 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, Sandstein 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion was previously closed as "delete". It is relisted for the reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 9. Sandstein 19:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania or into respective X - Tanzania relations articles. The relationships are notable, the buildings are not (unless they are of some historical or architectural value that allows them to meet WP:GNG) and the institutions are not. The extent of diplomatic relations is irrelevant to an article about a building (which is what these are). Stalwart111 23:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania or into respective X - Tanzania relations articles. The buildings aren't notable....William 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania, add the small amounts of information provided by these articles to that list Elassint ^Hi 03:21, 25 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. WP:SNOW close. It is very, very clear that there is absolutely no consensus for the deletion of this article. Further discussions regarding specific content forks and proper cross-article merging (including proper attribution) should happen elsewhere. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Crimea[edit]

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

Content forking to express a particular POV. Regardless of whatever happens, this article should not remain separate from Crimea (whether it ends up becoming a Russian federal subject, an independent state, or is reincorporated into Ukraine). Further, virtually all of its content was copied over from the Crimea article without proper attribution and then modified to fit the POV. Delete, redirect back to Crimea, and salt (until the dust settles, which may be days or years down the road). --Nlu (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Don't delete, unite this article with Crimea. Viktor Š 18:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Article about new unrecognized state. Article Crimea is about different entity – Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The Republic of Crimea covers all Autonomous Republic of Crimea as well as the City of Sevastopol. Aotearoa (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Republic of China, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria are not recognised by all countries yet they have their own articles. Bolegash (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But none of the four have separate "region" and "political entity" articles — which is exactly my point. (See Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria respectively.) The issue is not whether Crimea should have its own separate article; it clearly should. The question is whether there is to be a separate article for the region and the claimed political entity (which, by its own terms, will not exist much longer if its stated goals are carried through). The way the current separate article is done is against WP:CFORK, and should not be done. --Nlu (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kosovo has the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija as separate articles. [Soffredo] 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Republic of Crimea is a de facto independent state with recognition. [Soffredo] 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the fact that this "Republic" is unrecognized and the vote was considered "illegal" by almost the entire world, the concept of "unrecognized" states or republics is not uncommon on Wikipedia. In fact there is an article that contains information on unrecognized states.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point; there clearly should be an article. But this particular article is a content fork from Crimea, and the two articles should be one. --Nlu (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is the point. They are not the same thing. There are two ideals being discussed, one recognized and one that is not recognized. Clearly these are two separate subjects.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the problem is the content forking, wouldn't it be better if we simply deleted the edits that caused said fork from the history log? The article had content already before I forked the rest. It seems that a deletion would be an extreme solution for a minuscular issue. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Viktor Š until more concrete information. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It DOES exist. Mamemame187 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Soffredo: MrAdaptive343 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy), similar to Kosovo situation. —Nightstallion 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The proclaimed entity is notable due to mass media coverage, even if it will be absorbed officially by Russia in the coming days. We have an article for the "State of Somaliland" which was a state that existed only for a week. IJA (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy) Recognized by Russia Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy). Wikipedia is not perfect. I forked certain sections so that we could start polishing this article and give it its own identity. Whether content forking should be done or not is subjective: we don't have a rule against it, merely a guideline. This guideline, WP:CFORK, says at the very top: "[this guideline should be] best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is one of those cases where common sense tells us to fork it as the Republic shares many of its information with the "former" Autonomous Republic. I didn't fork the history section. But I did fork the geography because the geography is virtually the same for both regions. The other forked sections are similar. WP:EDIT, one of our most sacred policies, states very clearly and explicitly that "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required". This article is a work in progress, whose content was forked from Autonomous Republic of Crimea to make it easier to develop it. If the community's concern is that attribution has not been properly given then I encourage the community to use {{copied-multi}} to provide attribution. Or we can simply delete the fork from the article's history log and return it back to how it was before the fork. Hope this clears everything up. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid article on an ever-changing current event. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And rename Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Both of these articles describe separate states, and should be maintained. The history of Crimea as a whole should be relegated to the Crimean peninsula article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do as the user above proposes. I agree completely. There's no reason why the Crimea article should continue to be associated with the Ukranian entity (The Autonomous Republic of Crimea). Wikipedia must adhere strictly to its NPOV policy. The only way to do this is to have three different articles, one for Crimea, the peninsula and disputed region, another for the Republic of Crimea, the recently declared State proclaimed by the local authorities, that was not only recognized by Russia, but that also has de facto control of the region and discharges State authority on the ground; and a third article for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the Ukranian entity that Ukraine, the US, the EU and others hold to be the de jure political entity with authority regarding Crimea. 179.218.142.172 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly notable. Let's wait for events to unfold. 23 editor (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy) and merge Crimea with this article. Citation Needed | Talk 21:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The republic probably won't last long (though maybe Russia will reject full annexation because of international pressure and give it an Abkhazia or South Ossetia-style independence) but it exists now, and many other historic short-lived and largely unrecognized polities have their own articles. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy). I'm not sure if we'll need the aut. rep. much longer, since It's now, or will be, I guess, one state. 'Crimea' should redirect to here. Smarkflea (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove all the content copied wholesale from Crimea. This article is about an unrecognized state, which in all likelihood is going to become an unrecognized part of Russia. There are plenty of aspects that pertain to it but not so much to Autonomous Republic of Crimea or Crimean peninsula. All three articles should be properly cross-linked, summarizing one another parts, of course.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2014; 21:09 (UTC)
Merge We currently have three articles, this one, Crimea and Crimean peninsula, we surely don't need all three. I suggest that following WP:COMMONNAME Crimea should refer to the peninsula as a whole, the bulk of relevant content should be merged there. I propose we merge this article into the main Crimea article and rewrite it to reflect the current situation e.g. include it in the category for unrecognized or largely unrecognized states. Some issues may depend on the exact status of Sevastapol under the new de facto regime, which may mean having an AR Crimea article. PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, separate entity politically and geographically than Autonomous Republic of Crimea, also is recognized by Russia B14709 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: I think that proposer does not want to say that topic Republic of Crimea is not notable but want to say that an article should cover all three topics (Crimea, Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea). The question is whether this is the best idea but as far as I can see there is no ultimate solution given on this Wikipedia. There are somewhat reversal practices: Kosovo and Western Sahara on one hand but Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh or on the other. There is also case of Abkhazia.

Kosovo:

Kosovo (article is about the geographical region of Kosovo.)
Republic of Kosovo (article about partially recognized independent republic declared in 2008)
Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (article is about autonomous province of Serbia on the territory of Kosovo)

Western Sahara:

Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh

Abkhazia

Abkhazia

It seems that the current situation in the case of Crimea is comparable with or going to Kosovo and Western Sahara practice. But in that case if we take this solution initial observation is based. Specifically, article Kosovo focuses on geographical region of Kosovo. Article Republic of Kosovo focuses on s Government and Civil authority administering region of Kosovo. Article Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija focuses on administrative and sovereign claims of Serbia. These three articles are not copies with different titles but rather focus on different and specific topics. It seems to me that this is issue that was raised here. All the best.

--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is independence state and The Russian Federation have already recognized it. mrl586 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: @Drmies and myself reached consensus on my Talk page. I will be giving proper attribution later tonight to the content fork by using {{copied-multi}}. If someone else could help us in the meantime we would really appreciate it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, merge later. Republic of Crimea is a newly independent nation, Autonomous Republic of Crimea is still considered a part of Ukraine. They are two different entities, albeit occupying the same (similar -Sevastopol) land. Once the dust settles and either one or the other emerges (or it becomes part of Russia), then either one will become a part of "History" section of the other.--Truther2012 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. What Russia does or does not recognize at this moment isn't all that relevant. The referendum was yesterday, it's a gigantic international shit storm, and we're de facto proclaiming existence? This should be a section in Crimea, for now, until the dust settles. We're not the news. NOT the news. What's this rush all about? Is this really about giving a proper overview of what's happened (not, "what's happening": we're not the news), or is someone trying to make a point? (That's what some of these keep votes are suggesting--"Russia says it's OK!") Drmies (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with news? Wikipedia covers current events, particularly of such high importance.LordFixit (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fo shizzle? "What does this have to do with news?" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news portal. "Republic of Crimea" is a topic of sorts, but it's hard to argue that it is a de jure country, despite what a bunch of people might say. That it was on the news doesn't change that--and moving all the content from Crimea to Republic of Crimea is kind of like creating this country ex nihilo and inventing its history. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be deleted entirely, because content from it was copied to the Crimea article in 2004 [1]. The 2014 Crimean crisis article mentions the declaration of independence by the Crimean parliament and its recognition by Russia; the topic is covered by International_recognition_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea and Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation. —rybec 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Agree or disagree with it the fact is that Crimea is now it's own country. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid logic [sic] Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until the dust has settled. There's no point having an article on a so-called country that probably won't exist in a fortnight. There are POV issues, and besides, a lot of it is duplicated from elsewhere. In the event that this new Republic is not absorbed into Russia, this will be a legitimate subject. For now, keep it to Crimea. BethNaught (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 19 different languages and the Simple English Wikipedia also have a standalone article for the Republic of Crimea. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it's already being discussed on NBC Nightly News this evening... if that doesn't make it notable, and verifiable, I don't know what will. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Clearly notable. Republic of Crimea (political entity) is different to Crimea (geographical region) and is recognised by a major world power, Russia. LordFixit (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regarding the original criticism: "Regardless of whatever happens, this article should not remain separate from Crimea (whether it ends up becoming a Russian federal subject, an independent state, or is reincorporated into Ukraine)" - No. There is such a thing as a Crimean Republic government and de facto a Crimean state. It may or my not be legal, recognised, and it may or may not have a future. But it exists, is notable and merits an article. As similar examples I would not only name Kosovo, but also transient former states such as the Confederate States of America (which has a separate article from the American Civil War). "Further, virtually all of its content was copied over from the Crimea article" - Yes. individual pieces of content should be distributed between this and the original article, depending on where they are most relevant. As there is little else going on in the Republic of Crimea except the current controversy, I think it's ok, if this article contained only insignia, demographics, government structure, etc.; and the rest of the content was returned to its initial place. Chymæra (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy). The indepencence of Crimea has definitively been a notable subject, despite its lack of diplomatic relations. We have Transnistria as a separate article from Moldova, if we make a comparison with another similar topic. This nomination simply doesn't make sense at all. - Anonimski (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. The people of Crimea voted to join Russia and Russia already recognized it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.245.12 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, without merging with separate political and geographical articles. There should be 3 separate articles. The best example for this is the one added by user Mirko S18 for Kosovo:

Kosovo (article is about the geographical region of Kosovo.)
Republic of Kosovo (article about partially recognized independent republic declared in 2008)
Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (article is about autonomous province of Kosovo on the territory of Serbia)

And the same model for Crimea:

Crimea (article about the geographical region of Crimea)
Republic of Crimea (article about self-declared, partially recognized, defacto independent or for example the part of the Russian Federation, declared in 2014...)
Autonomous Republic of Crimea (article about autonomous republic of Crimea on the territory of Ukraine)

Gaston28 (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Completely inappropriate to delete an article on something because we don't agree with its legitimacy, which is what this nomination smacks of to me (I apologize if I'm inappropriately assuming bad faith). -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation: as the proposer says, virtually all of its content was copied over from the Crimea article without proper attribution. We do need an article about the unrecognised state in the Crimea - but we don't make articles by simply "copying and pasting", we don't do it without attribution, and we don't make a hatchet job of it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 00:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a copyright violation to copy articles within Wikipedia and you don't even need to attribute anything if it's within one language version of Wikipedia.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:E593:EF42:3FD1:27B1 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely incorrect: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. However, I've posted the proper template, diffs and all, on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Strong and speedy). The Republic of Crimea is a political reality presently existing on the ground. One may like it or not, but this is a fact that cannot be ignored. Deleting the article to keep only the one that refers to Crimea as an Autonomous Republic within Ukraine would also violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The correct thing would be to have three separate articles: one for the Ukranian political entity claiming to be the lawful authority (the Autonomous Republic); another one for the newly declared independent State recognized by Russia that asked to join the Russian Federation and is discharging actual authority over the peninsula; and a third article for Crimea the geographical area, disputed between Ukraine and the Republic of Crimea. Antonio Basto (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Crimea article is about the autonomous republic within Ukraine, which does not include the City of Sevastopol. The Republic of Crimea article is about a mostly unrecognized new state that includes both of those entities. They're not the same thing, so the new article should stay.--Slon02 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everybody calm the **** down. Lexo (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crimea considers itself an independent state, this status is recognised by Russia. It`s may be a puppet state, but real state like North Cyprus or "Independent State of Croatia". Carpodacus (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are probably confusing news circulating about Crimea, but Crimea stopped taking any orders from Kiev since February 21, 2014. Since that time, Crimea has slowly had to be unofficially independent, there were border checks established between Ukraine and Crimea, taxes have been changed so that they go to the local Government, and not to the one in Kiev, Police and Law Enforcement officers took an oath to the republic of Crimea. There is also a self-defense militia of Crimea, and Ukrainian Navy and Army has no permission to enter into Crimea. It has been functioning as a sovereign state, but was formally declared only on March 11, 2014. Members of the local Government (this was before March 16 still) have announced that even if the outcome of the referendum is not joining Russia, Crimea would not become part of Ukraine, and that statement is essentially the point at which one was already sure that Crimea is definitely independent. What happened on March 16, was that the population decided that the Republic of Crimea (which was established on the 11th) should eventually become a Federal Subject of the Russian Federation. I hope that this clears it up for those who are still confused about this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.183 (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per WP:Speedy Keep#5 as the article is currently linked to from the main page. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 02:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this article even controversial? Readers wish to come to Wikipedia and read representative perspectives on current events. This is precisely what Wikipedia is all about. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case we're doing something seriously wrong--or it's people who don't know what "encyclopedia" means. No, this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Boat & Yachting[edit]

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

not a notable publication. Ryanthewebguy (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In US terms a circulation of 12,000+ may not seem a lot but in terms of the UK it is not insignificant. IPC Media is part of Time Warner and deleting this article would create the only red link in this list of its current publishing divisions, which would be a shame. I've added an extra citation regarding the publication's history - it will be 114 years old this year - and request that it be kept. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The added citation, which seems to confirm that this is a magazine that has published under same name "Motor Boat & Yachting" for over a century, does seem to establish notability. --do ncr am 01:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A magazine that has managed to keep going for 110 years is surely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 22 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 05:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afzal Hossain Munna[edit]

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

No evidence of notability that is backed up by sources. --Jakob (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article sourced only to the subject's self-loaded YouTube videos. I found a passing mention of "Tor Jonyo Priyota" in The New Nation ([2], via Highbeam, subscrription reqd.) but that is just a listing. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable person. Self-made YouTube videos are not independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of citations to express notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:21, 19 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 14:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Luthor[edit]

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

Unsourced. Various links to CBS etc seem to have no relevance. Notability not established. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsigned musician that fails all 12 criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Claims of notability are not supported by reliable sources. Claims related to Farmville are supported by Twitter-like sources. This musician appears to be known mainly for one video which lacks RS attention. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene. Half-claims supported by weak evidence. A search of Zynga's website and related sources finds nothing about Luthor ever having worked for them. It's possible he worked on the team for Farmville, and was then left it, but such a claim deserves better evidence. This page appears to be mere puffery. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Musician meets Criterion Number 7 at WP:MUSICBIO. Has posted Farmville IP paperwork on social media, however that should be referenced in article. • WisconsinsFinest (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think you mean Number 10. Farmville is not an actual city. — Gwalla | Talk 21:49, 21 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) Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrymandering in the United States[edit]

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

By the creator's admission, is a copy of Gerrymandering, with some added material. This should be added to Gerrymandering if appropriate. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any of the deletion criteria being applicable to this article, nor does the nominator posit any. Volumes of material have been written about gerrymandering specifically in the United States, and information specific to the United States was taking up a disproportionately large amount of space on the main Gerrymandering article (see revision 599966762). The main article is sizable; before moving out some of the U.S.-related material, its readable prose size was large (per WP:PAGESIZE) at 67kb. Gerrymandering in the United States is an appropriate spinoff article that was created in line with Wikipedia's guideline on summary style and WP:SPLIT. If the main article encompassed everything related to gerrymandering in the United States—the history, relevant federal and state legislation, relevant court cases, the several different types, legal and political remedies—it would be unbearably large and slanted toward the United States content. The reason I "admitted" to copying material from Gerrymandering was to give proper attribution when copying material from one article to another, which is a permitted practice (with attribution required by WP:COPYWITHIN). Even still, the new article is not a duplicate of its parent by any means; I've added a large amount of new material and sources that were completely missing from the main article—including info on bipartisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering, the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering, and alternative voting systems—and I've rewritten much of the old. As I mentioned, volumes of material have been written about gerrymandering specific to the United States, certainly enough for the topic to merit its own article per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SUMMARY, and I plan to continue to work to expand and refine the article with any other editors who may wish to participate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading through the article, there are plenty of notable sources and I know that the subject has gotten a good deal of government and lobbying attention. Also, there is much more notable information in this article than what can be placed within the gerrymandering article, so a merge is not a good solution. (There is some content copied over, but a lot of the information looks original from the gerrymandering article). The article may need a bit of clean up and some additional research, but the subject is notable and I don't see a reason to delete.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason(s) given for deletion. Its creation appears to have been done properly. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A more-than-valid spin-off. Orser67 (talk) 21:50, 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 speedy deleted as CSD G7 after author blanking. Xoloz (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live with Cody Jendro[edit]

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

Non-notable program. Fewer than 20 Google hits, none for reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:24, 17 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 14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh_Biswas[edit]

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

Non-notable according to wikipedia standards. See WP:N. References provided re-direct to WP:SPS. Delete. Dream Eater (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the most reliable looking sources provided:

The Tribune India gives him one paragraph as the "founder chairman of the International Youth Society of Eco-friendly and Renewable Technology" (a subcommittee of India Youth Time, itself a subgroup of Youth Time?) talking about installing some dustbins.
His own clippings include a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview from the Gyan Darwar magazine (not clear what this actually is) and one sentence in the (in-house newspaper?) India Digest about him chairing a forum for India Youth Time.
The claim that he was the winner of a Rhodes Youth Time Forum award goes to a WP:PRIMARY website that doesn't mention him. Not clear that this is a significant award.

On one paragraph and one sentence, the article fails WP:BASIC. Delete. --McGeddon (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG definitively. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 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 redirect to Mark Gonzales. → Call me Hahc21 05:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hippy jump[edit]

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

"Please kill me, it hurts to live" - Hippy jump article, age 7. Jokes aside, this page is completely uncited, and I have strong doubts regarding its notability. To see this article survive since it's creation on 01:17, 31 July 2008‎ really impresses me. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Mark Gonzales. Elassint ^Hi 14:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark Gonzales works for me as a plausible search term; it comes up in skateboarding-related blogs/sites/forums but I'm not finding significant coverage for it. The best I came up with is the "highest hippy jump" in the Guinness Book of World Records. Gong show 00:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Gonzales with a mention in the appropriate sub-article to Skateboarding trick. No need for a stand-alone article. Stalwart111 12:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 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. → Call me Hahc21 05:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic blunder[edit]

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

Violation of WP:DICDEF: a strategic blunder is just a grave mistake by a strategist, whether military or otherwise, and anyone with knowledge of English can work out the meaning of the phrase.

On the talk page, I suggested reworking this into a list, but actually the See also section doesn't even list strategic mistakes, but simply hazardous situations that occur in warfare. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete Encyclopedic entries on idioms would include essay-formatted lexical info on the term's origin, meaning, etc.. but also how it's impacted society in some way, and specifically sources about the idiom. Otherwise it's just lexical content. As an example, American (word) is encyclopedic content because of the extensive sources which do not merely document meaning, etymology, etc but go further to discuss the societal implications of the preemptive use of that word by US citizens and the implication that Canadians, for example, are not "American". Those sources discuss (depending on the author's perspective) the arrogance of the US or the insecurity of the non-US in that proprietary usage. They discuss the historical, cultural and even legal complications that have come from the inherent ambiguity of the word. In other words, the sources discuss the impact of the word "American" on the outside world. -- GreenC 15:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary definition. (and wrong - not that it matters - in that 'strategy' and 'tactics' are two different things.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to overlook that it conflates strategy and tactics, but this is just a dictionary definition. It's no different than creating an article on "bad idea". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 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 merge to Becca (musician). → Call me Hahc21 05:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stars In Stereo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. If anyone thinks otherwise, please specify which criterion under WP:BAND. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [or AT A MINIMUM, redirect to "Becca (musician)"] - I just added nine sources to Becca (musician) as follows:

"Becca - singer - jpop". Jpopasia.com. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
"Becca Hollcraft Archives « Oregon Music News Oregon Music News". Oregonmusicnews.com. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
By Rosal LopezMarch 25, 2013 at 7:30 pm (2013-03-25). "Stars in Stereo invades the Marquee | ASU News | The State Press | Arizona State University - Part 85509537". The State Press. Retrieved 2014-03-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
"Review: Stars In Stereo - Stars In Stereo — Kill The Music". Killthemusic.net. 2013-05-13. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
Pierangelo, Hannah (2013-05-10). "Stars In Stereo – Self-Titled: Album Review". idobi. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
"Take Aim: Amy Sciarretto vs. Stars in Stereo's Bec Hollcraft @ARTISTdirect". Artistdirect.com. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
"Melodic Net - Becca - Alive!!". Melodic.net. 2010-06-02. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
"Hellhound Music Interview with Stars In Stereo front woman Bec Hollcraft". Hellhoundmusic.com. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
"Stars in Stereo - Stars in Stereo | Awards". AllMusic. 2013-04-09. Retrieved 2014-03-08.

The latter source indicates that the band ranked No.12 on Top Heatseekers in 2013 for their self titled album. In any event, with the references shown in both Becca (musician) and Stars In Stereo, I strongly believe that one (if not both) of these two articles should remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for your comments. You haven't referred to any WP policies though. This still looks like a clear fail of WP:BAND, and you haven't made any argument to the contrary. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:NBAND Bullet 1 "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" and WP:NBAND Bullet 2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response OK, thanks for replying. This is still a fail of WP:BAND. Most of the sources above are primarily about Becca, not the band; non-independent; not very impressive, e.g., blog or college press; or virtually a blank page. Also, I would not count Heatseekers as the national music chart for the purpose of establishing notability. By its nature, notable bands are omitted from the Heatseekers chart. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have seven additional references that I just conjured up on Stars in Stereo. The references, in my opinion, are enough to write an article about their debut album in addition to writing an article about the band. Furthermore, idobi and The State Press have articles on Wikipedia.

*Please enter your name. "Stars in Stereo Aim for the Rafters in 'Every Last Thing' (LYRIC VIDEO PREMIERE)". Noisecreep.com. Retrieved 2014-03-10.
"Stars In Stereo Bio | Stars In Stereo Career". MTV. Retrieved 2014-03-10.
"Melodic Net - Stars In Stereo Release New Lyric Video". Melodic.net. 2013-03-15. Retrieved 2014-03-10.
"A-Sides with Jon Chattman: "Secrets" and Seeing Stars in Stars in Stereo; Mona Tops This Week's "Delve Into Twelve" | Jon Chattman". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2014-03-10.
"CD Review: Stars In Stereo - "Stars In Stereo"". Starpulse.com. 2013-06-02. Retrieved 2014-03-10.
Weiss, Brian. "Review: Foxy Shazam with Cadaver Dogs and Stars In Stereo | Live Music Reviews | NUVO News | Indianapolis, IN". Nuvo.net. Retrieved 2014-03-10.
Joshua Boydston. "Oklahoma Gazette Music: Stars in Stereo". Okgazette.com. Retrieved 2014-03-10.

Last but not least, even if an article about the band is not warranted, I feel that "Stars in Stereo" should be redirected with the history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response OK, thanks, but there are some dodgy references in there. Like college newspapers (State Press) don't count per WP:BAND. The MTV blurb is less than 100 words and seems to be some kind of wiki or other self-publishing entity. The Noisecreep advertorial was done in partnership with the band--not independent. The Nuvo article barely mentions Stars in Stereo. Melodic and Starpulse are really brief. The OK Gazette article is mainly an interview so it lacks independence. I think you are making the case weaker not stronger here. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

If it is true that most of the sources are about Becca and not about Stars in Stereo, then why shouldn't Stars in Stereo redirect to "Becca (musician)"?
Just because you "would not count Heatseekers as the national music chart for the purpose of establishing notability" does not make it so. WP:NBAND only requires the band to meet one criteria to be potentially notable.
The idobi article is independent, reliable and detailed.
There is no evidence that the detailed Noisecreep article was done in conjunction with the band.
If MTV is not a reliable source, I do not know what is. The bio was written by Matt Collar of Rovi, and "seems to be some kind of wiki or other self-publishing entity" does not make it so.
No issues with the Huffington Post article have been presented.
I don't agree that the Starpulse article is brief, but Starpulse is used in the album review box of quite a few articles.
While the Nuvo article may be short, the artist, and even the album could likely survive on reviews such as this one.
There are several parts of the Oklahoma Gazette article which would contribute substantially to the "Critical Reception" of the artist and album.
WP:NBAND says "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases" (not all cases) are the exception.

Therefore, at a minimum, we likely have good reviews in The State Press, idobi, Noisecreep, Huffington Post and Starpulse. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WP:BAND does not say any chart. In the case of Top Heatseekers, the chart excludes notable bands, so it does not establish notability. The MTV page includes the text "Are You Stars In Stereo? Claim this page." If you read the FAQ, it says that on "MTV Artists," bands are allowed to edit their own pages. The HuffPo blog has less than 150 words about the band (other than the tour schedule, which is excluded under WP:BAND). The Noisecreep article includes the phrase "Stars in Stereo have partnered with Noisecreep...." The Starpulse article is 167 words, 118 about Stars in Stereo. Honestly, Jax, every time you post something on this page, you just make the the case weaker and weaker. And the cavassing [3] [4] is unlikely to help. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -

Actually, "WP:NBAND" says "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Billboard is a United States music magazine. Top Heatseekers" is a chart that includes music artists from around the country and around the world such as Sherrié Austin and Texas Hippie Coalition. The chart ranks artists by "the act's historical chart performance", therefore, not just any musician can place on the chart.
The Noisecreep article says "Stars in Stereo have partnered with Noisecreep to bring you the lyric video premiere for their album track". There is no evidence that the first two paragraphs and the last paragraph are not written independently by their staff.
There has been no objection made to the idobi article.
"In depth" is a relative term.
The plausibility of redirecting the article to something more broadly encompassing has not been discussed.+
I have added another reference from Allmusic (who was owned by Rovi Corporation) to back the MTV biography.Stars in Stereo | Biography

Is anyone else going to comment on this AfD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Becca (musician). Coverage from independent reliable sources such as HuffPost and Allmusic is still pretty faint. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:21, 15 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) and redirect to Becca (musician). I can't see there's enough to justify a stand-alone article but there's probably enough that some might search for it and redirects are cheap. Stalwart111 08:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. I don't think there's enough to merge to the other article but if someone wants to do that work, a redirect would not be out-of-the-question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 22 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 05:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Arlington Catholic Forensics League[edit]

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

The sources cited in the article are all primary sources, and I haven't been able to find any independent sources to prove that it passes WP:ORG. There was a merge request at Talk:National Catholic Forensic League, but that didn't manage to get consensus, so I'm taking this to AfD instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No sign of reliable sources, fails GNG.... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:56, 8 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. Neutrality^talk 21:25, 19 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!} 11:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thorwegen[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable advertising executive. Part of a coordinated publicity campaign with the company and his colleague, nominated at the two adjacent afds. There's no point in merging, as even collectively there is no notability. All refs are either PR pr trivialities, . DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find coverage for this fellow which would reach WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article about the company he founded was recently deleted. That company appears to be what he's most notable for, so if his company isn't notable enough he isn't either. Elassint ^Hi 08:41, 25 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!} 11:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbody[edit]

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

Falls under WP:DABNOT; no corresponding articles with this subject's name. Drm310 (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't explain or give a clue to what hyperbody is. It would belong in Wiktionary, if it weren't for that. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:35, 14 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Kas Oosterhuis, "director of Hyperbody", a research group at Delft University of Technology,[5] preferably the former, as the latter doesn't get a lot of attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 19 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!} 11:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romcc[edit]

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

Does not seem to be wp:notable. The totality of independent sources covering it are already in the article, in the form of one interview. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:58, 25 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, KTC (talk) 09:29, 8 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - software article of unclear notability.The only independent reference is the h-online article, on its own insufficient to establish notability. A search did not reveal any additional significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:52, 24 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 no consensus. This has been on AfD for a month, with 2 relists, so a third relist seems pointless. I'm calling this NC, with no prejudice if somebody wants to nominate it again. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Runamuck[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. I am also nominating these character articles with the same issues

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Runamuck, Scorponok, and Swindle into List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 25 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, KTC (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge because we don't delete all the Transformers articles because they are sometimes notable. JJ98 (Talk) 10:45, 11 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 17 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR ‑Scottywong | babble _ 17:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Landquake[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. I am also nominating these other characters with the same issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate list (autobots or decepticons). These characters do not demonstrate notability independent of the franchise itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:18, 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, KTC (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge because we don't delete all the Transformers articles because they are sometimes notable. JJ98 (Talk) 10:47, 11 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 17 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 no consensus. After a month on AfD and two relists, another relist seems pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metabologen[edit]

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

Appears to be a neologism. Do not believe this is commonly-used terminology; 45 results in google scholar verifies this. LT910001 (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bone morphogenetic protein. A Gscholar search shows this to be a real term, although restricted to a narrow field and not widely used. Some sources say that it is a synonym for cytokine, but again, not widely used. Since the term is mostly associated with BMPs and is mentioned in the lead of Bone morphogenetic protein, this seems a natural target for a redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 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, KTC (talk) 09:36, 8 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Harmless article for an obscure word for which there are actually a few sources to cite. Narayanese (talk) 08:32, 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 05:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Syllabus[edit]

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

Lacks notability per WP:NALBUMS. The title is more commonly used in an educational context and so should not redirect to the artist as this would confuse per WP:R#DELETE. Andrew (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (striking ~~"Keep"~~ original vote). I am guessing this comes up only because of attention brought from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syllabus (disambiguation). However this is one of 4 articles on albums by the same artist, and only this is nominated, and there is no evidence of searching to improve references. I am not familiar with albums notability standards, but comparability matters; "other stuff exists" guideline/essay notes that comparisons can be valid. Also, if sentiment goes against keeping a full article, a redirect to the artist would be better than outright deletion. No one searching for article on academic Syllabus would search for "The Syllabus"; there would be no confusion. --do ncr am 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for sources and didn't find any. As the album is not notable, there's no evidence that anyone will want to use this name to find the artist. We shouldn't let our namespace get cluttered up by such album and track titles if they have no notability. Andrew (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, convincing enough with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' comment below, too, so I have revised from Keep to Delete !vote. --do ncr am 01:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability and would be an illogical redirect to the artist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:47, 15 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 17 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. WP:NOT → Call me Hahc21 05:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SandS[edit]

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

Notability not established; maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Article has references, but those have been cited at most a handful of times according to GScholar (which is usually quite accurate for computer science and related fields).

I've tried to find additional references, but the name "SandS" makes this quite difficult. "Project SandS" also gives mostly unrelated hits on DuckDuckGo, GScholar and GNews. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 8 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 17 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 05:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best Laid Plans (David Torn album)[edit]

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

NN album. Fails GNG. GSearch for refs returns only promotional/sales/minor blogs. Current refs consist of only the label and allmusic.com. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an album from 1984 - wp:NTEMP. I believe Allmusic qualifies for one review - and it was released under the ECM label. That it has a review online twenty years later to me is enough to indicate that there has been enough coverage out there to pass the GNG. I'm going to say Soft Keep - hard keep if anyone can turn up a reference. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to David Torn. This is a notable album - GBooks has several items of coverage but only snippet views. This would have received print reviews back in the 1980s so on the one hand it satisfies notability guidelines, but on the other, we don't really have enough for a standalone article until someone is able to access those reviews, so perhaps a minimal merge and redirect to the artist would be appropriate for now. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 9 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 17 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 05:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jaras[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine; sources seem to be listings in directories, rather than the requisite substantive discussion; plus the tragedy of the death of one of their photographers. Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 8 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources indicating notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 17 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. Okay, I think I have to explain this one to avoid any claim of supervote. First, Sidelight12's vote has no compelling rationale to merge (and this is not a vote anyways). Second, although Supernerd11 voted merge his rationale actually aligns with deletion ("I see no reason for it to have its own article"). Third, I usually do a Google search and merge the content myself when closing AfD's as merge, but I found nothing on Google that could back up the text at HiQualityCD were I to add it to Compact disc. So, this was a delete to me. → Call me Hahc21 05:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiQualityCD[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; not a new technology, but merely a manufacturing process. ï¿½ (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Compact disc. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 08:26, 16 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though Merge as above would be acceptable: no indication of notability or reliable sources to be found. It is only a CD made of different materials. If merging were the case, then at any rate non-promotional sources would need to be found, as so far it is supported only by a broken link and an advertisement. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into compact disc. This just seems to be a type of CD, and without enough information for more than a couple of sentences, I see no reason for it to have its own article. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:49, 17 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 05:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturncoin[edit]

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

Page appears to exist solely to promote Saturncoin. As of this posting, the article suffers from a distinct lack of reliable secondary sources: instead, it is has two forum posts, a tweet and a link to an exchange as its references. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Breadblade (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added valid references to this page. Its an information page about the Saturncoin Project i had only one paragraph when got reviewed by previous user, Article has been almost fully written now and the proper sources added to acomplish WP:GNG Requirements. Kind Regards (CryptosUs (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Strong Delete - failure of WP:GNG, various other things that these coins usually fail to meet, etc. Citation Needed | Talk 12:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have added valid references to this page.- Previous Author shows a conflict of interest by being writer of 2 cryptographic coins wich are in the Wikis, he fears another good coin has come to town, Advice being reviewd by People without conflic of interest, he's author of Coinye Dogecoin and now fears competition, Article follows all the WP:GNG more sources are added while more ivestigation and gathering of even more sources to add and Kindly waits for a review. Best Regards (CryptosUs (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I had intended to let the creator develop this article but I have to agree with Breadblade, Saturncoin does not yet meet notability criteria. GNG requires actual secondary sources, not mentions on niche-interest websites. Please try again when The New York Times writes about Saturncoin. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added valid references to this page. while i answered to Chris talk and asked for feedback on new article, ive had no answer and i find previous stated interpretation of "try again when it gets to new york times" personal, a little ambigous and elitist, one can check the sources article and they are in compliance with the conditions required in WP:GNG - Citing_sources - ( SOURCES #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source ) and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources , waiting for and administrator for review and verification applying the five pillars of Wikipedia specifically reffering to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptosUs (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the coin is notable to the cryptocurrency community if not the larger world. It is informative to have a range of currencies on Wikipedia. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you square the lack of any reliable sources with WP:GNG? Agyle (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin - every keep vote listed above does not use policy to explain why this article meets the criteria for inclusion onto Wikipedia. Citation Needed | Talk 12:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to keep admin I have added valid references to this page. Previous user statement is wrong, Saturncoin is not a business, it is an open source Public project, you can read in the wiki, thats why this exist ;) Previous user has already been discovered to have a conflict of interest by being the writter of 2 cryptocoins, he is trying too hard to get this informative coin article deleted, and you can see his real intentions, thats no wikipedia spirit, ive even donated because i believe in wikipedia guidelines and that people like this with personal conflict of interest is sad for the wikipedia enviroment, so is adviced to be reviewed by an admin and applying the pillars of wikipedia. Wikipedia:Five_pillars Guides specific Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as previously stated. Best Regards. (CryptosUs (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please keep your arguments about wikipedia policy instead of trying to discredit other contributors. Breadblade (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not discrediting anyone, just stating the Facts, everyone can read the guides and see it. Best Regards (CryptosUs (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, nice amount of discussion in varied sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used in the article are very problematic, though. As of this posting, Sources 1 and 2 are forum posts written by the developer, Source 3 is a link to an exchange rate chart, Source 4 is the coin's webpage (a broken link), Source 5 is the Bitcoin whitepaper, Source 6 is a simple link to the coin's forum, Source 7 is a link to a market capitalization chart, Source 8 points to the coin's source code repo, Source 9 is the Scrypt whitepaper, Source 10 appears to be some kind of newsgroup posting, Source 11 points to the coin's blockchain statistics, Source 12 points to a blog post about a different cryptocoin, Source 13 is a bare link to an exchange, and Source 14 is a tweet that mentions "SAT" along with three other coins. I'm not seeing the significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Breadblade (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies on his review and personal judgement: source 1 and source 2 are different users, from bitcointalk.org official forum, source 3 its financial chart live history, source 4 (updated: its an article from 3rd source) source 5 yes (its clearly stated where it comes from and supporting what it is) source 6 is a well known site in the cryptocurrency world who announces the new coins and specifications and provides developers with a space to attend new community interest) source 7 yes it is the market capitalization chart as it is what this link supposed to be as is where was taken the information from, source 8 is the link to the OPEN SOURCE CODE of the project as it is being stated in the article, even litcoin article links to his repo, go fight them? source 9 your right! it is the scrypt whitepeaper as the article is telling that its based on it and providing the source. source 10 its the original discussion where Scrypt for authentication came from, again litecoin use this one as comes from Srypt also, why you are not fighting them? source 11 it is talking about the blocks statistics.. where should it link to instead ? source 12 its a site that reports on the coins popularity day by day and picks a good coin prospect and reports about it with their point of view and is known in the cryptocurrency world. source 13 it is the link supporting the post being there as you can directly see the active market, source 14 its the official account for the Cryptsy exchange where they announce the new coins added, again to support the article........(again you are just showing personal interest in deleting this article by providing personal judgdement terms instead of reviewing it and saying proper justifications). Best Regards.(CryptosUs (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sources that are not independant from Saturncoin, sources that do not address Saturncoin directly and in detail or that lack any sort of editorial integrity do not count toward WP:GNG. That disqualifies pretty much every one of the sources I noted above from lending the article notability. Please refrain from turning this into an ad hominem argument. Breadblade (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not from saturncoin, and already stated the facts. let admin verify. Best Regards.(CryptosUs (CryptosUs (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, article talks about one of the multiple cryptocoins available today; asking for an article in NYT about a new cryptocoin is like asking an article about the Two Generals' Problem in some newspaper. It exists, is widely known but inside the academic circle. Here is the same subject: in the small world of cryptocurrencies SAT is known but not yet widely used. Is that the only reason for the deletion? Canopus⁴⁹ - Replies here 23:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any source discussing the coin at all, besides routine postings such as exchange rate charts, forum posts and first-party postings from Saturncoin. Forget the New York Times, it doesn't even seem to have been picked up by bitcoin niche publications yet, probably because it hasn't done much yet to stand out among the hundreds (thousands?) of basically identical coins out there. Breadblade (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again personal judgement no neutral point of review at all, and you could find more disscusions if you used google. Kind Regards.(CryptosUs (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I have added valid references to this page and removed text that might not look from a Neutral point of view, Removed external sources [last part of the article] to help it being even more neutral point of view written. Best Regards. (CryptosUs (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Strongest possible delete. Fails to meet any notability criteria because not a single reliable source was cited, nor did I find any after a good faith search. It is not covered in books, peer-reviewed journals, normal financial magazines and newspapers, or even recently-created cryptocurrency-specific publications like CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine. There were a bunch of non-reliable source citations to internet forums, businesses selling Saturncoins, anonymously run websites and so on, which I have removed for failing to meet WP:RS. Agyle (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE FOR REVIEWER: Please be aware that CryptosUs has voted multiple times in this discussion. Agyle (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE FOR REVIEWER: Please be aware that Agyle has edited the article removing ALL the sources of the article, and making his own conjectures(wich are lie, and you can find out by visiting the sources) but he DELETED them prohibiting to you to review them, i answer after i read and add/modify or erase content as its being required in the discussion, but now this user has just CENSOR the free access of information by REMOVING and DELETING the sources of the ARTICLE before you can review it. Not following the Pillars of wikipedia. (CryptosUs (CryptosUs (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I have added more verificable sources and fixed the sources previous user removed for proper Admin Review. Best Regards (CryptosUs (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

CryptosUs, the person who makes the final decision typically bases it on the opinions and arguments put forth in these discussions. I understand that you're trying to improve the article, but for the most part Wikipedia does not allow the types of sources you're citing (web forum posts, blog posts, email messages, amateur websites, etc.). This is a co-operative editing environment, and removing inappropriate content like this is not "censorship", it is an ordinary part of the editing process. I have included detailed reasons for any content removed at Talk:Saturncoin. If anyone wishes to see the version prior to my most recent edit, with CryptoUs's references intact, it is here. Agyle (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review from a more Neutral point of view, this is different than your previous edit, and you provided links to the info of previous sources, with a clean statement with your oppinion on each source, this does feel more neutral and i appretiate it. (CryptosUs (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Forum posts and market cap listings are not significant coverage, and a search did not reveal any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE. Even though I am assuming WP:AGFgood faith,]] I suspect that this article may have been written in an attempt to legitimize the currency as well as increase its popularity and price. Ging287 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is a insignificant altcoin not worth being featured in the Wikipedia. There are other much more innovative altcoins that need to be explained than this altcoin. Solphusion (talk) 23:37, 23 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oggi Tomic[edit]

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

The original rationale given for deletion, by Munjanes, was "irrelevant content, personal commercial". It seems that this subject truly is non-notable, as there are not a lot of references other than social media sites, as well as no news references at all. Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 11 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, → Call me Hahc21 04:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find much of anything by way of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN so I can see any reason we should have an article about the subject. Stalwart111 05:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Stalwart111, I searched for the kind of coverage that would show that he is notable, and came up with nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article written by this person himself (can be seen in article history), has no coverage in public media, just trying to make self commercial. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 16:33, 19 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 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Goodwin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. just another animator who doesn' t stand out. No sources. Only notability comes from sibling. WP:NOTINHERITED. Beerest 2 Talk page 15:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are plenty of sources about Ginnifer that mention Melissa and her animation career, and sometimes describe her as "prominent" or something like that, but so far I've been unable to find anything in a clearly reliable source that focuses on Melissa or her work. Although she has worked on an award-winning series, I didn't find any indication that she's personally won or been nominated for awards. I will be happy to support keeping this if a stronger source is identified. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 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, → Call me Hahc21 04:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite this person's involvement in notable works, I'm not seeing that WP:CREATIVE is met at this time; nor am I finding significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Gong show 01:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE No reliable independent sources. Only reference provided appears to be written by the subject. Delete and restore only when reliable independent sources are provided. Doduf (talk) 03:42, 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. WP:HAMMER → Call me Hahc21 05:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moist IV[edit]

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

Upcoming album with only a few possible tracks, a tentative title and no confirmed release date. Most sources come from the band's twitter and facebook pages, while the two independent releases don't discuss the album in any detail ("the band is not only back on tour but also working on new music with plans to head into the studio over the winter" is all one of them says). Just a case of WP:TOOSOON as the album does not yet meet notability requirements for albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon is right. No confirmed title, release date, or track listing to date, and there is insufficient coverage to overcome these shortcomings. Subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 00:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The title is what the band is calling the album, and the producer is confirmed. The album is being worked on, I don't see how this is any different than other bands with developing albums just because there are less available third party sources. Crumpled Fire (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Moist (Canadian band). Doesn't expand on what's in that article, and the tracks they are working on now may never be released as an album. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 16 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, → Call me Hahc21 04:19, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pig Island (Arkansas)[edit]

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

Unverifiable, I can't find no reliable sources indicating the existence or location of this island. Many sources on the web, but all maps show a stretch of forested land, not an island, and many of these sources (type "fallingrain") have been shown to be totally unreliable and copy their errors from the same original faulty database. Fram (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since been changed from "an island" to "a community", but, while it is apparentluy listed as a "geographic name" in the GNIS database, I see no evidence at all that it is a community either... Fram (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, without further sources, it is now back to being an island[6]. If there isn't even a single reliable source indicating what "pig island" actually is, then I don't think we should have an article on it. Even among unreliable sources, the supposed fact that it is an island in Crosstie Slough is hardly reported: [7]. Fram (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fram: I don't have a stake in this AFD. I did notice it and did try to improve the Pig Island article, which had and has very little. I disbelieved that it was an island, partly because of your comment about it not appearing to be an island in your map view. I temporarily was thinking (incorrectly) that all GNIS locations were communities, and put that in, but i worried that might not be correct. Then I found my way to the GNIS listing which does clearly identify it as an island, and explains in its definition of an island that that could be in a swampy / lowland area. And by map research I see that it appears to be within Crosstie Slough. I also tried looking in historical New York Times database and a couple other behind-paywall sources, and didn't find much. I reply because I don't want you to think that I or anyone else was editing with a point of view. I was simply trying to improve the article and, as it turned out, I didn't get very far, but I did correct my mistake and I believe the small amount added, net, is correct. --do ncr am 00:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, oh okay. I thought it was a very bizarre edit and made no sense to me. Thanks for the explanation. Bali88 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There does appear to be a few mentions of it online on map sites. I would imagine it is probably a small, uninhabited island in the middle of the river. The fact that it exists is not enough for an entry. My back yard is also a geographical area. It doesn't belong on wikipedia either. Bali88 (talk) 13:36, 10 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, → Call me Hahc21 04:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems nothing exists to verify that this is an inhabited location. Obviously if someone comes forward with something at a later date it can be instantly recreated and (with a source) would likely be far more substantial that what we have now. Doncram tried to fix it and couldn't (but has out thanks for his efforts). It really has been given every chance possible. Stalwart111 04:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless as is, shouldn't have been created in this state. I'm all for stubs, but some of these geostubs are just racking up article creation counts and create confusion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:54, 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. → Call me Hahc21 05:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BDNA[edit]

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

Promotional article for company of marginal notability by now banned promotional editor. The awards are minor; the references are PR; and nothing else can be expected, for the accomplishments are fundamentally insufficient for notability . DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 10 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, → Call me Hahc21 04:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of significant coverage about this company in reliable, independent sources as needed to establish notability. Possibly, their Technopedia product is notable, but I don't think the company is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I found only routine coverage found in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 22 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 05:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Vanilla Ice[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, with lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Whether one believes in superstitions, some do receive enough coverage to write about more than the mere mention of one. This is not one of them, with only trivial mention in coverage. The article creator declined another editor's PROD and then removed without explanation a tag asking for more sources to establish GNG. Does not seem encyclopedic enough to merge/redirect to 2013 Houston Texans season. —Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only curse involving Vanilla Ice is on us, because we have to discuss Vanilla Ice. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a standalone article on this topic seems unnecessary when it can be easily (and very briefly) contained within the Vanilla Ice article, which already had a sentence on the halftime performance. It now reads: "On September 15, 2013, Vanilla Ice performed at the halftime show of a Houston Texans game. Houston went on to lose the remaining 14 games of the season, leading some players to blame Vanilla Ice for the losing streak." That's quite enough on this subject, me thinks. Gong show 22:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete ~~fails WP:ONEEVENT~~.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I incorrectly applied WP:ONEEVENT to this case. That's for people claiming notability for one event, not "one event". However, This still is not noteworthy. ~~The article doesn't even claim what season it happened nor what is the date of the event.~~ It is poorly written and at best should be taken out of mainspace until it can be re-written into a bona fide article. At worst, it still isn't notable and should be removed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I inserted several sources supporting this supposed curse. Happy now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahadmire (talk • contribs) 02:39, 18 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The continued trivial nature of even the latest additions underscores WP:NOTNEWS.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - I haven't researched this specific phenomenon, but if it is indeed a well known thing, it could very easily fit into the existing Vanilla Ice article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added Added what season it happened and what day the game took place.--Elijahadmire (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The event is already covered in Vanilla Ice. Not a useful search term, so no need for a redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 16:10, 19 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 05:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Faroese football transfers winter 2013–14[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original nomination rational still valid "Contravention of WP:NOTSTATS due to complete lack of sources prose. No indication that the subject of transfers between clubs in this semi-professional league attracts anywhere near the level of significant reliable coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of notable subjects in the listing as per WP:NFOOTY means this is hardly a useful navigation tool either." JMHamo (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as original PRODder with the reasons given outlined above, I see no reasons to change this at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transfers for a minor league? No evidence of notability i.e. of detailed coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Giant Snowman 12:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – insufficient rationale for keeping an article with this topic. Rationale above very convincing for deletion. C 679 15:21, 21 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.