Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 August	17 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Alahverdian

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:PERP, and I didn't see any other criteria he'd fall under. Should either be deleted or redirected to Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al, but perhaps that article should be deleted as well. The edit history for the article is also a bit sketchy with a lot of WP:SPAs. Odie5533 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps redirect to Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al, if that article meets the notability guidelines for court cases (I'm not sure what those are currently). I added the notability tag to the article and I'll repeat what I said on the talk page "Subject of article does not seem to meet WP:GNG currently. The article does not violate WP:BLP because everything is sourced, however the source articles do not verify notability. The only thing that comes close is the court case mentioned at the bottom, however, that still fails to meet the guidelines for a bio article (or even article pertaining to the event laid out within WP:CRIME. Also, I have suspicions the article may have been made by the subject, which isn't expressly forbidden on Wikipedia, but doesn't help the argument that the bio was made simply due to the subject's notability." 97.91.179.39 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the above IP address user. This AFD has been blanked once by a new account, cutting off discussion. Is an admin seeing this activity? Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 01:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP:1E. An spa has been deleting many of this AfD's entries on siscussion pages. Admin attention needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Originator of a legal case, defendant in a legal case, and blogger. Coverage of the first two is superficial; of the latter seemingly non-existent. Pretty clearly either self-written or pay-for-play. It's a nicely constructed Wikipedia article, but on the strict question of whether this subject passes GNG — or any Special Notability low bar — that answer appears to be no. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - related AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al. GregJackP Boomer! 02:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E with a good solid helping of WP:OR thrown into the mix. There's a whole section where someone has tried to reinterpret primary source court documents to re-argue a legal case, much of which is a blatant WP:BLP violation. Can someone WP:SNOW close this and be done with it? Stalwart111 03:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E at best, and even that might be somewhat generous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I deleted a large portion of the page as a WP:BLP violation and outlined my reasons on the talk page (somewhat limited - it's worse than what I explained, I have further information that I am willing to provide to any admin that needs it). GregJackP Boomer! 05:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yea, google for this guy's name and it turns up a slew of blogs and such where his crusade (against a wide variety of things) is carried out, in excruciating detail. There's nothing of actual notability though, and what reliable sources do make mention of this person do so in the context of the lawsuit and even then only briefly. The lawsuit itself isn't notable either. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like others have said, on a good day this might meet WP:BLP1E at best. This isn't a good day. First Light (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the clear consensus already established. No notability established.Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2013 (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/withdrawn - seemingly nominated on the basis of a misunderstanding. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 03:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Flanders, Jr.

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and seems to be a part of a suite of articles written by single-use accounts trussing up subjects surrounding Nicholas Alahverdian, which is also being considered for deletion. May also violate WP:BLP. NewAccount4Me (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Welcome to Wikipedia! State Supreme Court justices pass criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN. This one is easily verifiable with a Google search if present references aren't strong enough. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, wow, I forgot what "associate justice" meant. Massive brainfart. Just trying to clean up the mess associated with all of these single-purpose accounts on the Nicholas Alahverdian article. This might not be the right place to ask, but how should one handle the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families article? Just make it better? Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State Supreme Court justices are presumed to be notable, and no contrary evidence has been presented. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss how to improve other articles, except to say "improve it". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the AfD initiator and now believe this article should be kept. As I stated above, I mistook "associate justice" as a different meaning. NewAccount4Me (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2013 (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. A quick review of the nominator's recent edits, paired with how obviously this article meets the relevant notability guidelines, easily substantiate Jogurney's claim of a pointy nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barel Mouko

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

This player plays and used to play for non-professional teams, according to the manual this is not allowed to be paged. Argento1985 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is POINTY nomination since I !voted to delete an article this editor created, and it is also an incredibly lazy nomination. Mouko is a full international footballer who has made more than 100 appearances in the fully-pro Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 (contrary to what the nominator says it can be easily verified using the sources in the article). The article is a stub, and needs to be fleshed out, but that is easy enough to do and no reason to delete. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but all signs indicate bad faith. Jogurney (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - not sure about the pointy stuff but the subject would appear to pass WP:NFOOTY without too much trouble. Stalwart111 00:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Encarnación Montero (actor)

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

'Actor' whose only acting, according to the article, has been school and library plays and acting as an assistant on set during filming. No evidence of notability. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reliable source in the article currently appears to be [1] which (based on machine translation as I don't read spanish) provides him credit as a performer. This looks to be somebody just starting to crack into the movie business. Far too soon for an article based on the currently available reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing this guy has done meets notability requirements. If kept it needs to be rewritten to be in proper English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is an exceptional actor who is notable when only aged 18. Certainly a few will be, but not him. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nude recreation

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

Seems to be OR, list of activities that someone associates with "nude recreation" however that term might be defined. Seems to read as a "directory" of nude activities. Caffeyw (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no OR, these are activities that could be reasonably described as "nude recreation". Many of them probably do not warrant a separate article, so the article makes sense in this respect. The article could also be expected to enumerate and briefly describe such activities, which is also fine and has nothing to do with WP:NOTDIR. GregorB (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does have some problems. Much of the content seems to be just random activities that some people do naked, with no accompanying sources, but it doesn't seem like an insurmountable wp:problem. It needs work, not deletion. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All this article needs is a few more citations. Guy1890 (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per above - WP:N is probably met, but the article does need some work. Ansh6 6 6 03:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure how notability can be met. All it is a term someone came up with for anything that a person does in the nude. Since one can do anything nude (maybe not legally in certain circumstances) there's no encyclopedic value to listing every activity that a person can do. All this appears to me is two words put together with a definition of what those two words mean, followed by a list of every possible human activity. I've fried bacon outdoors camping while naked, should that have an entry? It could go on and on. Caffeyw (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not (i.e. it shouldn't be) a list of what can be done, but it is OK to list what has been done, with any regularity at least, if supported by reliable sources. GregorB (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with any of the following: Naturism, Public nudity, Nudity in sport, etc etc. I really can't see the point of having so many pages about these types of events/activities, except as tittilation. I think an argument can be made that the number of pages about nudity and naked events/activities is systemically WP:UNDUE. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would need to know the total number of "nude-related" articles on Wikipedia to judge whether there was a valid UNDUE argument. Other than that, Wikipedia is not censored. Guy1890 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting censoring anything. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Portal:Nudity. The pseudo-random sampling I made of those articles suggests that not just this article, but the subject as a whole needs an awful lot of cleanup. And the articles, generally, are more image-heavy than other topics, I'll note. It might be an interesting project to do some comparisons, actually. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm vaguely familiar with the with the nudity portal, but AfD is not cleanup. I'd suggest that you take your concerns (which my indeed be valid) there instead. Guy1890 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - As a reply to the comment above: focus the article on organized activities. I also oppose the merge argument: public nudity and nudity in sport are notable enough to have their own articles, and general recreation is not a sport, nor must it necessarily be public. --Terminator484 (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2013 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 08:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal planet

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The very few unreliable fringe sources that exist also disagree with the article content (I'm not citing this as a reason to delete, just as incidental). Doesn't meet the notability requirements as described as Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. No mainstream to be found sources at all. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IRWolfie. Couldn't find anything supporting this article myself (only stuff saying it doesn't exist!). Ansh6 6 6 03:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content is not appropriate for Wikipedia: WP:OR and WP:V, but if any part of it was, it would belong in Planets in Astrology. Kooky2 (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VendAsta

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

minor awards; promotional article of non-notable or borderline notable company, that manages to list all the vice presidents in the infobox not once, but twice. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the infobox to remove all names but the CEO's in "keypeople". I have also tried to be very careful in writing this page to avoid any promotional language, and anything that may sound like an achievement for the company is backed with a reputable 3rd party source. However, if you can highlight any specific problem areas, I'll work on them to improve the quality of the article. As to the company being borderline notable, VendAsta is a significant company for the Saskatoon tech community -- due to the heavy hiring it does and the amount of community participation it has, including sponsoring events with national and international reputation, such as the Mobile Social Conference (mosoconf.com), where Brendan King was also asked to speak as part of a panel of veteran entrepreneurs. If the notability doesn't come across very well in this article, please suggest how it can be improved, and I will absolutely work on those suggestions. Kushalsharma83 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. As currently written this does not seem overly promotional to me, especially for a business article. While perhaps borderline I also think the subject comes down on the side of notability. Stronger third-party sources would be nice, but they aren't always available for corporate subjects. The external links and content of the press releases are enough to establish notability in my view. There is core encyclopedic knowledge here, and fixing the (possible vanity?) company officer listings in the infobox did not require nominating the entire article for deletion. -Thomas Craven (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's no longer promotional, unless an article sourced to company's own press releases is promotional, and considering that's the state of our articles on even clearly notable companies, it's not fair to go entirely by that. The question now is notability. First, selling one's product to notable companies is not notability. Then,

Looking at the awards: 1/ is "The Next 50 Canadian ICT companies", next = the next ones that might become notable. 2 is business builder, similarly, and only a finalist. 3/ is also only a finalist 4/ is one of 14 categories, only for the province, not nationally 5/ is another "up and coming" 6/ is most promising new. By the same logic we don't count farm teams or junior teams in sports, 1, 2,3 , 5, & 6 do not count, & 7 is not national.

Looking at the references, Refs 4,5,6,7,8 are either the company's web site or straightforward Press releases labelled as such; Ref 1 is the founder talking about himself, Ref 2 is a dead link, but it seems to be an announcement that they raised a few million ; the others are announcements of the non-notable or local awards. Ref 3 might be usable, if the correspondent is reliable, but it's less than we normally use as proof of notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes sense to me except for the bit about farm teams; there seems to be plenty of articles about minor league teams on Wikipedia (e.g. Arkansas RimRockers, Iowa Cubs, Brooklyn Cyclones), and those teams would seem to be notable to me. I suppose the counterargument would be that the fact of the company's raising money and the content of its own press releases justify it as notable. It's not ideal, but there may be subjects of interest to an encyclopedia that might not be of regular interest in the popular or academic press. That said, I get the impression that there is a consensus standard which remains unmet for the VendAsta artcle. I'm striking out my Keep vote, although I won't change it to delete because I'm not confident enough of the standard to apply it yet. Appreciate your sharing your views. If there is a WP page with guidelines or thoughts on notability for businesses and you don't mind sharing the link that would help me tremendously as well. -Thomas Craven (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,we do accept the highest level farm team, and it might have been more likely to be notable if the distinctions had been actual awards at a national level, but they are all either finalists rather than winners, or placements of a list rather than actual awards, or provincial rather than national. And of course in any paerticular case there may be other evidence for notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant indepth independent coverage to establish notability. Independent sources that I could find were routine business news announcing money had been raised. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The google news links reveal coverage of recent funding from the Houston Chronicle and The New York Times. Coverage is minimal, but sufficient to establish notability as per WP:GNG. CooperDB (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable about company. The "coverage" that keeps being talked about is nothing but routine company announcements/company PR. An announcement that a company has got funding does not lend to notability. Caffeyw (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability. About half the current references are blog sites, including the company's own. That some local newspaper has chosen to print a press release or two is just background noise. It doesn't help that the first sentence is totally incomprehensible, either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that neither the who's who listing nor the interview statement contribute towards WP:N requirements —SpacemanSpiff 08:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akhlaq Choudhury

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

non notable junior counsel; no reliable sources for notability other than listings. I am not prepared to accept the article in Emel, as he wrote the part about him by himself. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Emel article is an interview credited to Sanjana Deen therefore not self-published. If you are familiar with the magazine, you will know that all their articles are written in this format. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not enough to meet GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's received significant coverage in two different reliable independent sources (an Emel magazine interview and 4 editions of British Bangladeshi Who's Who) therefore meets GNG. YousufMiah (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability of a junior barrister is not determined simply because they are junior barristers, and normally a junior barrister would not get a Wikipedia article. However, based on the WP:GNG and WP:BIO standard, the subject is notable based on the amount of coverage he has received. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does a self-written statement published in an unknown publication and appearances in a niche ethnic minority Who's Who guide equate to meeting GNG? That is not nearly enough. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am afraid you're mistaken and your attempts to discredit the article and the publication are poor. The article is not a self-written statement as claimed, it's an interview credited to Sanjana Deen as Tanbircdq has already stated. After reading their articles it seems all if not most of their articles are written like this. Emel has been deemed an unknown publication according to what? Your POV? YousufMiah (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think we have ever accepted a Who's who listing in any country, "ethnic minority" or otherwise, as a sufficiently reliable source for justifying notability. Their standards might best be described as erratic. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, lacks notability. One or two articles that he's mentioned in are non RS and/or provided directly from the subject. Caffeyw (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot see much in the article that really qulaifies as notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both sources are clearly independent and reliable. 178.17.70.1 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources meet GNG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess C Scott

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

No reliable sources, almost nothing in worldCat, promotional wording throughout. The article was previously deleted on the grounds of unreliable sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please advise on tone of article, when articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonka_Dunin are not flagged as "blatant advertising" and/or being written in a "promotional tone." One can presume it is (at least partly) due to the fact that Ms. Dunin is a Wiki admin, and one of the top 350 of active Wikipedians.

Which are the exact sources in this article that are "unreliable"?

The author has received coverage in third-party, independent publications such as Singapore Writers Festival, Word Riot, Provisions Library, The Straits Times, and The Register (UK). These are additional sources that were not there when the article was previously deleted. If these are not reliable sources, may someone explain what a reliable source would be?

To my knowledge, the article on Ms. Jess C Scott satisfies the criteria for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Please advise. Elfpunk (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which are unreliable? Jessink, amazon, goodreads, nightowl, to start with; Dunkin's article doesn't have a section listing who hass written on her blog, nor did it have a section on "quotes". DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section refers to "blog interviews with a few notable guests." The section does not merely refer to "who has written on her blog." jessINK was listed as a reference while keeping in mind the guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. The Amazon, Goodreads and Night Owl Reviews references have been removed as per this discussion's recommendations. That being said, those sources do not negate the reliable sources. If there is an issue with some of the sources, the article should be edited, not deleted because of "no reliable sources." Also, please explain why Dunin's page is allowed to list her website (autobiography) as a reference three times, if self-published material/websites are not supposed to be reliable sources, according to Wiki's guidelines. Elfpunk (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing in the article that show that the subject meets WP:GNG in any way. The supposed "third-party coverage" is all either mere mentions of the subject, simple quotes by the subject, or dead links. Oddly, I don't find a single review of her works published in a reliable source. I also don't find where any of her works have been listed on any sales charts, of have even been published by a regular publishing house. As a whole, the article appears to be more promotional than encyclopedic. Regarding the thinly-veiled accusations of some sort of conspiracy, I suggest that editor to visit Other Stuff Exists. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, thanks. I would have appreciated receiving that WP:GNG notification when the page was first created with the additional references. If the page did not satisfy WP:GNG, that should have been obvious to admins when the page was first created. I thought the research assistant post on a book published by a regular publishing house, along with the other 3rd-party independent media mentions were sufficient for WP:GNG. And I quote from Other Stuff Exists: "The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales."

For your reading pleasure:

The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia, Danny Sullivan (technologist)

Wikipedia as a Force for Evil, Piero Scaruffi

The Cult of Wikipedia, The Register

Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia, Salon (website)

Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists, New York Times | Elfpunk (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tough case, right on the line. Fundamentally I believe the author is probably notable due to the number of works published and number of readers, as seen here at LibraryThing. However meeting the technical hurdle of WP:GNG is a challenge that Wikipedia sets for inclusion. It's arbitrary, but so is the height limit to get on the roller-coaster. So keeping GNG in mind, looking through the refs I see one that counts for a reliable source that discusses the subject in-depth, and that is the Word Riot interview. The rest are articles by Jess Scott (not about Jess Scott), which can't be used for GNG purposes. Or they are just brief mentions, a single sentence quote, or notice of appearance somewhere, which are not considered for GNG purposes. Typically what is needed for authors to meet GNG are two types of sources: interviews that talk about the author, and book reviews (in reliable sources). Are there any book reviews in Publishers Weekly? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass GNG. Only articles I can find are primarily written by the subject. The only real thing subject has going for it, is the fact subject has published multiple books. However that by itself isn't enough. Caffeyw (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, appears to be promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of stuff by her, not a lot about her. The "Wikipedians are evil" conspiracy refrain does nothing to suggest to others that you are assuming good faith. There are plenty of "getting started" guides that would have pointed you to WP:GNG and all other relevant policies had you looked before creating your article. Stalwart111 00:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. I would love to recommend keeping an article about a Singapore born young writer of erotica who has relocated to Maine and is struggling with acne, and whose ebook was banned by Amazon. What a life story! Unfortunately, I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources needed to demonstrate notability. As such coverage could be published tomorrow, my recommendation to delete will be withdrawn immediately if such sources are produced, and I wish the young writer every success in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Improved POV as per this page's suggestions--added references/interview/review from Worldcat, SexIs (magazine), and Straits Times Online Mobile Print. Please advise if these are not credible sources, tks. Elfpunk (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2013 (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 AfD is obnviously tainted (again) and there are quite a few "itsuseful" Keep votes, but there are good-faith ones too and judging from the last comment the basic source is generally reliable. I'd suggest waiting for the discussions at SPI and RSN to conclude, and then re-running this AfD again. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of attendance figures at anime conventions

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The last AFD's result was manipulated by User:Misconceptions2 per some rather extensive sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or both, as outlined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2. As such, it cannot be considered a proper discussion or consensus as to the validity of this article, so I'm reopening the debate. First let me preface this by the fact that Misconceptions2 has been found guilty of either sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting in the past, as found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2/Archive, so any "keep" votes in this debate should be checked against the users suspected on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2 to make sure it does not happen again in this debate.

That said, I'll start by noting the redundacy of this list. Sales figures for conventions already appear, or should, on the individual articles on anime conventions, so having a list display this information again is redundant. Any of the conventions on this list that do not currently have articles may not be notable enough for inclusion, and this list shouldn't showcase non-notable topics that aren't even listed at List of anime conventions.

Next the sourcing, which is the primary reason why I'm renominating this article. This article almost entirely relies on content found at Animecons.com, which fails as a reliable source as it is user-edited. For instance, I clicked on the information listed at Ohyayocon 2008, which lists an attendance of 7,000. As you can see at the bottom of that page, there is an "Update Information for Ohayocon 2008" link, so the attendance figures are not reliable on that website. So at the very least, every single entry that references that website would have to be removed, which I believe would remove almost all the content from this article. 十八 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. bad faith nomination. Dont you think its better to make judgments and conclusions after the false accusation or sock puppetry and sock puppet investigation is over? I hope you also consider apologizing for me for making these accusations once I am cleared. I have been banned in the past for sock puppetry and the 2+ years since then i have never used socks. On 04 Sep 2011 (the last time I was accused of sock puppetry) I was cleared of sock puppetry: here --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you didn't engage in sockpuppetry, the referencing on this article is abysmal and relies almost entirely on an unreliable source, as I evidenced above.--十八 00:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid reason to delete, the source is reliable. this was established on talk page, all the data on AnimeCons website is verified.Encyclopedic and valid list. There are already several articles like it as mentioned by m2 see here: List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues. If prices were to be brought back then it would also be useful as would contain revenue and cost info--Mohsinmallik (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AnimeCon's may have a standing policy to only list information from the con's website. But that doesn't stop anyone, including you and I, to edit the information at will, which makes it unreliable. If I have to take this up at WP:RS/N, I will.--十八 21:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: Mohsinmallik had a few minor edits shortly before voting in the previous AFD debate, [2]. Seems to fit the pattern at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2.--十八 21:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How disgusting, will you just accuse everyone who votes keep of being a sock puppet of mine? Anyway. Any updates made on that website by users need to be approved by the paid workers of that site and a source needs to be provided . Try updating the site yourself with data and with a source, it will say: "We are currently experiencing a rather significant backlog so it may take us some time to process your submission. Thank you for your patience.". They have paid people who review the information there. And all the info there that was approved was not necessarily done by users.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relax and stay civil. I also think the accounts Juhachi noted were suspicious, let the investigation handle that. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is Bad Faith to assume someone is a sock without a conclusion to that totally false investigation. As Misconceptions2 said the ANimeCons source is reliable because all data there needs to be verified. The article also have several references for same peice of data, so I dont see what your problem is here. I certainly am not a sock of Misconceptions2. I want this to be verified asap.--Gokul.gk7 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin: Gokul.gk7 has been suspected of being a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet of Misconceptions2 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2.--十八 21:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons as before: On top of having content that's listed on the wiki pages themselves, lists many cons that do not meet notability on Wikipedia, and has several primary source issues. Most of this attendance information can be better addressed on the individual pages, including more reliable sourcing. Esw01407 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not delete lists because some of the data is found in wiki pages, that is just as bad as saying a list should be deleted because a category exists for it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The animecons.com site is reliable, it has been used by animenewsnetwork and about.com . This page uses several different websites as a reference for each cell. So it is wrong to exaggerate the usage of the animecons website--Priti.shetty (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin: Priti.shetty has been suspected of being a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet of Misconceptions2; see evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2.--十八 21:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting hilarious. Your just adding everyone who voted keep to the sock puppet investigation and claiming they arem y sock. In the end you will just have a lot of people to apologise to. The admins need to do checkuser asap to put an end to your madness--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a duck to me There is enough convincing evidence to suggest the last three keep votes were either sockpuppets or meatpuppets per their activity and contributions. Checkuser can only clear a user of sockpuppetry if the IPs are different, but meatpuppetry is not so easy to clear. I believe the evidence speaks for itself.--十八 00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to List of anime conventions and the convention articles, even if you get past those we have Template:Anime conventions in North America which navigates to the anime articles with the attendance figures listed. The sock puppets is alarming if true for this AfD as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Same reason as before. Totally useful and reliable article, well referenced. I see no reason to delete unless am missing something here. I also feel that this discussion should not be ended and a decision should not be made until that sock puppet investigation is over. I wish to be proven innocent. Juhachi can you please stop accusing everyone of being a sock until the sock investigation is over, don't you have the decency o just do that? It will just create tension--Lonelydream (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful article, well sourced with reliable websites, disagree with Knowledgekid87- List of anime conventions and this article are very different. --mediator_ram - talk2me 22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a WP:ILIKEIT argument to me when the only thing you have to say is that they are "very different". The only two things that are different about the two is the attendance figures and when the convention was first held both of which can be found in the convention articles linked by another template, other than that the names of the conventions and where they are located are all in List of anime conventions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can not start another AFD for something three days after it closed as KEEP! A lot of people commented last time, should they all have to copy and paste over what they said here again for the same discussion? After this ends in keep, will we have someone else nominated it for deletion three days after that? Ridiculous. And if you believe someone is a sockpuppet, then wait for that investigation you started to be over to prove it. I know I'm not one and I participated in the previous AFD. I doubt all the other guys who said keep were socks. Dream Focus 06:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a completely unmanageable set of data in this site. That's the biggest problem with that table. There are literally hundreds of anime conventions all around, and it is doubtful that anyone will be able to keep up with it. If this article ends up being kept, then it should be subject to another deletion discussion in the future, IF blank data ends up dominating the table. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I will keep up with it. If I do not you can nominate it in the Afd process again as you stated--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck ahead article near only built around a single source which reliability is questioned. The article in itself is clueless of where it's heading : what are the criterion for including in the list a convention or not ? Is there any reason to take the even years attendance instead of the odd ones ? The article also strongly biased toward north America : Did you know that two of the biggest conventions around the world are missing in the list, one with an attendance around 590 000 and the other reached 230 000 this year. Concerning the afd discussion smells strongly of ownership, arguments like "it's useful" or "i like it". --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve the list and feel free to add other conventions to it. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I'm a now wikipedia Kibitzer who just like to watch and make comments from times to times. Besides out of cowardice, i refuse to join to any potential trainwreck. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the afd argument revolves around the animecons website which is a reliable source. This article shouldn't be deleted at all. The references are satisfactory--Bmshafiul (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhy has this been nominated again just after 3 days. This article should be kept. And I am not Misconception, your claims against me are baseless. Many others voted in last afd, should we all just copy and paste those peoples reasoning to keep this article?--Acmel48 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Animecons.com the article's only source has it's status in question: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AnimeCons.com - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Animecons is reliable and while the discussion continues at the noticeboard, I find that citation in Cinema Anime and other academica are adequate to valid this editorially controlled database of attendance records to be a reliable source that serves as a historical marker when conventions themselves are unlikely to keep their own records forever. The citation of Animecons merely makes referencing such material easier than tracking down archived histories of the individual cons. While based upon one source, a concerted effort to expand to the original convention materials could replace the easier found citations if needed as Animecon's mirrors the official data provided by the conventions themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I RUN AnimeCons.com, which appears to be the primary source for the numbers here. The numbers we report are taken from either the convention planners themselves or published by the convention's web site or press releases. They're as reliable numbers for convention attendance as you will ever get. We DO NOT accept numbers from random users (without a verifiable source) or from Wikipedia (unless that points to a reliable source directly connected with the convention). ...so although the data on AnimeCons.com SHOULD be considered reliable, I really don't see the point of this page. I mean, if people REALLY want this sort of list, I could make a page on the site. Wikipedia is NOT a place for this. --PatrickD (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Navarro

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

PROD contested by creator due to the fact that this player has played in the Spanish 3rd Division. However, while that is true, the Spanish 3rd Division is not listed on WP:FPL as a fully-professional league and the Copa Del Rey match he played in while with Valencia was against a 4th tier side. Also the article fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not appeared in a match between two teams from fully pro league, which means he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with views expressed above. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Finnegas (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corlia Roberts

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

Subject apparently runs a college in South Africa dedicated to diamonds, but this appears to be the extent of her notability. Can't see anything in Google Books/News Archive, sourcing seems very weak. Was nominated for speedy deletion due to lack of BLP sourcing, sources were added from the South African Who's Who website which is actually an open-to-all site where anyone can upload their details without editorial input or reliable third-party editing - basically, just another version of LinkedIn. I am bringing this for discussion and to see whether anyone can find appropriate third-party sources for Corlia Roberts that would show she is notable enough for an article - am happy to withdraw the nom if notability can be demonstrated. Mabalu (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything reliable that discusses the subject. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The new source added to replace Who's Who (clearly in response to this AFD) is EVEN worse - being the subject's own website! If this is the best that can be done, this article really isn't going to survive AFD - a shame, because I'm hoping evidence can be found... Mabalu (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I can find no coverage about her activity in diamonds not can I find any coverage about her swimwear. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2024 AFC Asian Cup

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

Easily fails WP:NOTBALL, and has nothing except teams bids to host it. buff bills 7701 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious example of WP:TOOSOON. There is no meaningful content, and none that can be added. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs a few years. --MicroX (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's really no doubt this violates WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON; wait till bids submission date. LGA _talk^edits 20:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far too soon, no information available other than the names of the bidding countries. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 09:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Warriors

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND; possible fancruft. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fall short of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:BAND. The article's opening sentence got a shout out in the Washington City Paper, but that piece along with this one in Spin mentions the band only within the context of Pissed Jeans' career. I guess this could be redirected/smerged to that band's page, if desired. Gong show 18:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NBAND: Although the links lead to notable subjects, they're pretty much nicknames of the band members (which all of you may have already noticed).GuyHimGuy (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Karales

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

Contested PROD. Prod reason was "References are not valid, as it leads to blogs. Didnt pass the WP:GNG" prod removed by IP editor without comment, so here it is at AfD. Fiddle Faddle 18:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for press release reference seems to be valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.179.118 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Company PR are not RS. Caffeyw (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain* Press release and Thought Catalog archive prove validity/reliability in source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.190.68 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither press releases, or links to his works are independent. They are not usable for establishing inclusion on wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references pass Reliable Source (WP:RS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SefBau (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain* Press release from Horror Asylum is independent source, but a regulated news website. Proves reference to pass as Reliable Source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.190.68 (talk)
- Press releases are not an independent source no matter how many time you post that they are. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2013 (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. MichaelQSchmidt has improved the article, nominator is happy with the work and has withdrawn the nomination. (non-admin closure) Tito☸Dutta 21:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murugaa

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

~~There is no reliable sources for this movie.~~ Withdrawn. -- L o g X 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 07:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as meeting WP:NF. As reliable sources do speak about this film,[3][4] it serves the project to improve over time and through regular editing, rather than delete over a lack of effort. PS: I have just notified the article's 2007 creator. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. Pectore^talk 02:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since nomination, the originally unsourced stub article has been expanded, improved and most importantly, sourced.[5] My thanks to User:Titodutta for his link to the very helpful WP:INDAFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That looks fine. -- L o g X 13:36, 21 August 2013 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen College

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

I declined this G11, but I can't see that this article about a future school warrants an article on Wikipedia (yet, at least). I can't find any sources which discuss it, besides the Guardian listing which just includes it in a list of approved Free Schools in England for 2014. It may be that, once this school starts up, an article on it is appropriate (per common outcomes on schools); however, until then, anything we say about it is purely speculative and unverifiable. If it does turn out to fall into the category of schools which we generally keep articles on (which is not a foregone conclusion in this case), we can have that discussion once the school opens. For now, this is unverifiable speculation. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a matter of practice, I think we don't usually have articles about new high schools until they're about ready to open. On the other hand, it turns out that this school has had a flurry of actual news coverage, including some at the national level. An article in The Daily Telegraph on 5 June 2013 calls it "one of the government's flagship free schools" and reports, "School bans homework to give pupils more 'family time'". Similar articles can be found at the Evening Herald (Dublin) [6], BBC News (Norfolk) [7], a local Norwich radio station (including a 3-minute interview) [8], etc. If the school opens as announced it obviously will qualify for an article. In the meantime I might have suggested merging this to Inspiration Trust, although that article is severely in need of work and the notability of the topic is not clear-cut (though sources do appear to exist). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is premature, but we will need to have an article in the end, if the project goes ahead. However WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps keep for now and see if a school actually happens in September 2014. If not, delete then. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the essay WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES indicates that planned high schools are kept when due to open within 12 months and this school is only a few days over that. There is already considerable coverage in reliable sources so it is certain that when the school opens it will meet WP:ORG. There is plenty of material available now to make a worthwhile stub. In the circumstances WP:CRYSTAL permits the article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Arxiloxos has come up with some sources that I hadn't found. I'll try to work them into the article and see what we get - it might be that, per The Whispering Wind's reasoning, I withdraw this nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now re-written the article to include the Arxiloxos sources. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've given that a brief copyedit, but good job. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Following the new sources provided (not sure how I missed them first time around) I'd say this is just about notable, and the school falls within WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (in spirit, if not letter). I therefore withdraw this nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of words in English with many consonants

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

This list has a fairly arbitrary format. It could just as well include words with—well, many consonants, as in long words with more consonants than other words. Compare to the recent outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words in English without A, E, I, O or U. Delete or send to Wiktionary. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is very, very trivial information which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. T C N7JM 17:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be a bit of research into the roles of consonants vs vowels in hearing comprehension,[9][10] but listing words by "ratio" (it isn't even that) is WP:OR. I will feel no angst ("ratio": 0.8) when this gets jettisoned. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see WP:HTRIV; also fails WP:CALC. Ansh6 6 6 03:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as beyond our scope. This may fit in with Wiktionary's goals (perhaps as a project page there if nothing else?) if someone wants to do a transwiki and is able. Them From Space 02:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jiezuberband

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

This new article appeared on 14 August. It appears to look legit at first glance, however many of the references are lacklustre, for example, there's several links to books at amazon.com, such as Voicing Scotland: Folk, Culture, Nation 2013 and Minstrels, Poets and Vagabonds: A History of Rock Music in Glasgow 2009, and also a link to this [11] unavailable book; no page numbers supplied either. There are also several citations linking to festival sites, none of which look highly notable. There does not appear to be any cites from reliable sources. For a Scottish band I would at least expect some coverage from Scotsman, The Skinny, Daily Record, or even The List. I have searched Google for this band, they have quite a unique name so one should expect to find something; however I failed to find anything, and I couldn't find any reviews for their album Sound of the Sun. It looks somewhat WP:SOAP. Maybe someone else can find some facts about this band. Bluidsports (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 17:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 17:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything that demonstrates their notability. Peter Somerville (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found. Nothing else to indicate that an encylopedia article is appropriate at this time. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the most substantial article I could find covered them winning a battle of the bands contest. Like the nominator, I looked for reviews of their album as well, and turned up a big blank. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2013 (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 and move to Self-inflicted caesarean section. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inés Ramírez

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

Per WP:BLP1E. Perhaps some of the material can be merged with Cesarean section. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Wikipedia is not "Ripley's Believe It or Not", such "unusual events" do not belong in the encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Caesarean section. I note there's already a blurb there about the subject. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per FreeRangeFrog. I don't see the need for a separate article, and it's definitely a one-event situation (at least for her sake, I hope so). Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that, given the severity of the situation, the fact that the mother survived, and the fact that this was a medical situation with possible academic impact (this very possibly is and will be discussed in medical lectures, etc), this article should be kept as-is.155.101.84.101 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fascinating article that documents a notable natal incident. Wikipedia prides itself on its eccentric and tragic biographies. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Self inflicted caesarean section and keep. The event is clearly notable, and in cases of 1E we should write about the event, not the bio. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep - per Cyclopia and expand to include notable cases of death of the mother and infant, doctors' opinions about it, etc. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed other cases that could be covered in a general article. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Cyclopia's rationale or merge to a new section of Caesarian section. This content is sourced, relevant, and encyclopedic. It belongs somewhere. The single sentence now included in Caesarian section could be expanded, or we can keep it in a separate article. That can be considered over time in the normal editing process. In any event deletion would not be an appropriate result here, and neither would a mere redirect without incorporating more of the detail. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is clearly a notable event. Either move to a new article for the event or keep as is, but such a notable, and properly referenced event belongs somewhere. CooperDB (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per this source, which addresses notability concerns. Non-admin closing. --- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerwatch

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

Prod contested with the rationale, "If we delete this page, we have to delete all the Steam Greenlight games." Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, actually, we have to review the others one by one to see if they pass our notability requirements, This one doesn't. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article and added sources from Destructoid, Eurogamer and PC Gamer. Is this enough to match your requirements ? Ritouf (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep none of the sources in the article are great, with the Eurogamer one being the best IMO. But I think it's above the bar. Plus, it just came out on Aug 12th, I suspect we'll see reviews in RSes in the next week. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - new article about a new game, meets WP:NVG as well as WP:GNG after author intervention. Still needs work, of course, but that doesn't change notability. Ansh6 6 6 18:03, 16 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas More Institute

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

The article has references from only the website of the institution. No reference from independent source. Fails to meet the WP:GNG. Sourov0000 (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A higher education institution of long standing; multiple reliable sources to improve the article are apparent in a simple GNews search. WP:BEFORE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. gNews. WP:BEFORE failure. The nominator is reminded that, with the exception of BLPs, references are not required to be in the article, only that they exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources that are available are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. It educates to degree level and is clearly a long-standing and significant institution. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2013 (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. I G11ed this before I saw this AfD; I think it's a pretty clear-cut case. I've also semi-protected creation for 2 days. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs renewed

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Prod deleted. Should be speedied but no appropriate criteria. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very non-notable book and I honestly doubt the claims of the movie or game. It was previously speedied as a promotional article, so I tagged it again as such. Even if it doesn't get speedied, deletion of this article appears to be inevitable. I'd probably recommend salting this one, as it looks like the original editor will probably attempt to re-upload the article. He re-created this article mere minutes after the previous one was deleted, so I doubt he'll give up after a second deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note, the article's editor (User:Stevejobsfan7) has been systematically adding mentions of his book to various articles. It's clearly a promotional only account. I recommend the closing admin block him from editing, as he seems to be your run of the mill spammer making edits that contribute nothing of use to Wikipedia. I honestly doubt that he'll ever contribute anything of value to Wikipedia in the future either. I'd do it myself, but I'm unsure if this makes me an involved party or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Zeeshan

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

Fails WP:BASIC and the additional criteria WP:JOURNALIST. SMS ^Talk 17:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 17:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, all the refs are to articles that the subject has written, there's no independent coverage of him and nothing jumps out in a quick Google search. I've cleaned the article of its unsourced puffery etc. —SMALL JIM 10:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal IdM

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

Article contains no evidence that this company satisfies the conditions of WP:ORG - all the refs in the article that mention the company are from its own website. I've also been unable to find any significant third party mentions of it via web search, for instance Highbeam Research has 10 hits,[12] all of which appear to originate in press releases. —SMALL JIM 11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator says still delete, despite the addition of four new references by the single-purpose editor LarryAucoin (one of the company's founders). Of these new refs, one is a press release and the others are about its software – a brief note of an award, a mention in MS TechNet, and a short article which compares it to the competition. We still have no independent writeups about the company to show that WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied, and I still can't find anything after checking the top 100 ghits. —SMALL JIM 12:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, can you please provide us with a few sample companies out there for us to use as a reference? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.144.120 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads clearly as PR from the company. COI as it appears to be the company editing the the article themselves. Non-notabe, pure PR. Meets G11/A7 All most all references are from the companies own website, and appears some sections may violate G12 coming directly from the companies website. Caffeyw (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CyberTracker

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

A difficult one to check out but it does not seem to meet WP:ORG. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (Time magazine article reprinted on Cybertracker website, scroll down), [19]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Northamerica1000's links conclusively show this product's notability. And here's another one: [20], from the Australian Govt. —SMALL JIM 10:49, 21 August 2013 (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 all. Recent evidence provided on the talk page of WP:FPL shows the players have played in a fully pro league. Number 5 7 13:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Soo-Gil

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - They all has played in the fully professional league and surely made at least one appearance. I edited this page with reliable sources. z4617925 (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has subsequently been reverted, as the source you listed does not adequately confirm the league's fully pro status, and without reliable sources confirming that the the K-League Challenge is fully pro, we cannot assume that it is. Sir Sputnik (talk)

In the sources that I linked, FIFA explain '22 professional clubs are competing on two tiers this year.' In addition, Korean FA and every Korean main media including Sports Chosun, Sports Donga have confirmed this league is officially the professional league. Surely Two army teams in K League Challenge, but these teams consists of every absolute professional player who belong to professional clubs in K League Classic or K League Challenge. z4617925 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - regardless of the status of a league, all biographies should pass the general notability guideline to be notable. It is hard to determine without access to Korean sources, and help from Korean speakers to determine whether these subjects pass GNG is appreciated, but the sources provided in the articles does not show that the subjects are notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These players all meet the criteria of Notability guideline. They are certainly fully professional players and made at least one appearance in professional league. z4617925 (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL, which you believe these players pass, is just a rule of thumb. No biographic articles should exist on Wikipedia when the subject fails the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NFOOTBALL can help judging whether or not a sports person meets the WP:GNG. I can speak Korean and understand that the Korean sources in these articles prove that these articles meet WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. z4617925 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they don't play at fully pro league. Banhtrung1 (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They exactly plays in the fully professional league and made appearances.(Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues) The official site of K League proves it. Lee Soo-Gil, Don Ji-Deok, Jung Eui-Do, Kim Jong-Seong, Lim Sung-Taek, Kim Hyo-Jun. z4617925 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - since they played in a fully profession league (as listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues), it would seem to me that they meet WP:NFOOTBALL. CooperDB (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to qualify. Until K-League is an accepted fully pro league does not meet criteria. Caffeyw (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that K League is not accepted fully professional league? z4617925 (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am confused. K League Classic and K League Challenge are listed as fully professional leagues at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. And the article says that Mr. Lee Soo-Gil played for Suwon FC which plays in the K League Challenge. Is that information wrong or am I missing something else? CooperDB (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, these 6 players, including Lee Soo-Gil, currently plays for clubs in K League Challenge that is a fully professional league and made appearances in that league. So these articles have no reason to be deleted. z4617925 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Kim Hyo-Jun and Jung Eui-Dong~~ all. According to Mr Kim's KLeague profile, he made 13 appearances across two seasons for Gyeongnam FC, in 2006 and 2007. According to Mr Jung's KLeague profile, he appeared twice for Seongnam Ilhwa in the K League in 2009 and 2010. Having looked at the sources FIFA and Korea Joongang Daily (in English), I have no doubt that the K League Challenge is fully professional.~~If anyone decides definitively by the end of this AfD that the K League Challenge is an FPL, keep the rest as well.~~ Passing a subject-specific notability guideline presumes the subject to be notable, i.e. presumes they pass WP:GNG, and allows time for the article about the subject to be developed to demonstrate this.
Incidentally, Don-Ji-Deok is listed twice. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - the sources indicate that all have played in the K League Challenge which appears to be a fully-pro league (and as Struway2 noted above some have played in the fully-pro K League in the past). I don't know if these articles will satisfy the GNG, but I think it's fair to give editors some time to add the sources to do so. Jogurney (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special When Lit (album)

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

Non-notable album. The subject of the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. I once tried to redirect to Arthur Loves Plastic, but the author Memphisto (talk · contribs) called my edit "vandalism". So I'd like other editors' opinions here. 114.164.216.48 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above rationale was copied from Talk:Special When Lit (album) at the IP Editors request. Please use the time of this note as the starting time of the discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is an anonymous IP targeting an article for some unknown reason. 114.145.24.94 redirected the article to Arthur Loves Plastic, then 114.145.174.2 did exactly the same, and now 114.164.216.48 nominates the article for deletion. The anonymous IP seems to know quite a bit about the intricacies of Wikipedia, so I think their agenda has little to do with the notability of this particular article. In addition I object to the deletion of this article, which relates to an artist notable within the Washington, D.C. arts culture. memphisto 00:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Are IP's even allowed to nominate articles? This article is well sourced and not too short. The band is notable and the album having an article is good because all of Arthur Loves Plastic's other albums have articles as well. What could possibly make this album less notable than them? Nothing. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not well reference. The only reasonable reference it's had is the allmusic listing. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Just a bunch on bad external links trying to publicise the album. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep...but only if sources are added; otherwise, merge to Arthur Loves Plastic#Discography. (And to answer your question, Mrmoustache14, I don't see anything on WP:AFD that bars IPs from nominating articles.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The attacks from this anonymous IP (114.145.24.94, 114.145.174.2, 114.164.216.48, 114.164.64.248, 114.150.82.38) continue at Strings (Arthur Loves Plastic album) where again on being frustrated in their attempts to blank the article (redirecting it to 'Arthur Love Plastic'), they then nominate it also in articles for deletion. This is not contributing to an encyclopaedia, this is vandalism; and also a great waste of editors time. memphisto 17:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Gutierrez

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

Female MMA fighter with only one of the three top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter--fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage and has only 1 top tier fight, so she doesn't meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Mohrhoff

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

Bio of a German physicist working in India. Sounds a bit fringy. Was editor-in-chief of a short-lived non-notable journal and has published one book, which does not seem to have made much impact yet. According to the EL to his GS citations, his works have been cited 436 time (h-index of 14). In the more conservative (and precise) Web of Science, these figures are 116 and 7, respectively. Does not meet WP:PROF. Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. On data above-too early. May pass WP:Prof later. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete too, per nom and Xxanthippe. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF#C1; the journal editorship is a more likely avenue for notability but it would need stronger evidence of the significance of the journal. Working as an independent scholar is not a barrier to notability, but it is a bit of a red flag signalling that his views may not be mainstream and that we should look for stronger evidence of notability than usual. But even by the usual standards, I think he is not there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and kept. ^King Jakob _C2 12:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Night Without Stars

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

It does not seem like this meets any of the criteria for WP:NFILM ^King Jakob _C2 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. ^King Jakob _C2 12:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I looked and couldn't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Of course, it is likely that any contemporary reviews or commentary from 1951 are not on the web. Unless anyone can find such references in an archive, it should be removed. CooperDB (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I still can't find any suitable references, it is clear from IMDB that the movie was indeed released in multiple, international markets leading me to believe that such references probably exist, but are unavailable in offline archives. This, and the arguments presented below have changed my opinion that this subject is indeed notable and should be kept to allow further work on expanding the article, and hopefully, the discovery and inclusion of said references. CooperDB (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This brand new stub article was sent to deletion 25 minutes after being written by a inexperienced new editor. Sadly, rather than being welcomed to the project, his first communication ever from any other editor was a deletion notice.[21] So I just posted a welcome message on his talk page. Would this newcomer want to stay and grow and learn? With very little work the article has been expanded to offer our readers some context and content... and I learned it has international release under different titles (see below). As this film had wide release over a few years period, was distributed by notable companies, involved many notables on that period, I have a difficult time believing that "NO" sources exist. My sense here is more toward WP:NTEMP than WP:INHERITED... and to otherwise protect our cinematic history, I am now looking for sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep MichaelQSchmidt has admirably shown that this film received widespread international distribution, and most of the sources for reviews etc are unlikely to be found on the internet given its date. The guidelines at WP:NFILM were clearly not intended to block films such as this and a comparable film today would automatically be notable. Whether it is remembered today is irrelevant - a purpose of WP is to provide a resource for precisely those films which have now been forgotten but were watched in their day. --AJHingston (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Krips

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

Basically just one of hundreds of participants in the JET Programme who has happened to have a couple of local articles written about her. No indication of why she is notable among those hundreds of participants. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's interesting to get local news coverage on two continents, but the lack of meaningful content in the article and in the sources does not meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPA creation with a ref from her high school, her favorite Pokemon amine and a single mention in The Japan Times. Fails WP:GNG. Sam 🎤 08:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability in article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator in light of not taking the claimed awards into consideration (I think they were added after I nominated the article). Signalizing (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Signalizing (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1:30 am

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

Obligatory AfD, after a PROD template was removed regarding notability concerns. This obscure short film falls short on all of the five points set in WP:NFILM. Signalizing (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Did you fail to notice the 5 awards claimed in the article? That claim, if verified appropriately, is good enough for keeping the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, but the filmmaker's choice for title creates many false positives. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I have, hence, not been able to do through search for material. But i thought i should at least put this note so other editors start thinking in that direction. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:55, 19 August 2013 (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 and leave for expansion. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 06:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent risk (accounting)

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

This is very short, no real reference at all. I don't see a reason to keep this. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 12:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are loads of sources on Google Scholar. ^King Jakob _C2 12:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a notable concept. The article needs to cite more sources and explain it better, but don't delete. Borock (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic, sourcing isn't really a problem (an example book source ). If it isn't kept as a standalone article then merging might be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - right now it's a WP:DICDEF, but WP:N is met per above. Ansh6 6 6 03:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close - nominator does not provide a policy-based rationale for deletion. WP:TOOSHORT, WP:USELESS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 17 August 2013 (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 Hoax. Editor indef. Alexf^(talk) 13:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the Men who give Blood Death Punches

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

Makes a claim for notability but I can't actually find any reference to the band or them going gold so I'm doubtful if it's real. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 10:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 10:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this band actually exists, they have absolutely no coverage whatsoever, and are not notable. T C N7JM 10:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. The claims of importance are fake (they are not listed on Cooking Vinyl Records' list of artists, for instance). --bonadea contributions talk 11:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:HOAX. I found zero Ghits for "Asking the Men who give Blood Death Punches". — sparklism ^hey! 11:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as a hoax. Can find literally nothing. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sailen Debnath

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for academics. It doesn't help that the article is mainly pov OR. I note that this author is now prominent in a number of articles using similar pov language. Dougweller (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alipurduar College where he is an associate professor appears to be a small college with a 3 person history department.[22]. Being head of this department is not a big deal. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T C N7JM 09:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so the lack of interest here seems to be a matter of the article in question being too long; didn't read, so let me break it down for you:

The subject would seem to fail WP:PROF with nothing much in terms of an academic record that would set him apart from most middle-tier university staff.
Though there are a long list of "references" attached to the article, some are broken links and many others make no mention (or passing mention at best) of the subject. Despite the very long list, I'm actually inclined to think the subject fails WP:GNG.
A good number of the unlinked references fail WP:V in that while sources are not required to be online, some of the references in question simply point to "conferences" or unspecified articles with no title. References do need to be accessible to other editors and many of those in the article are not.
Many of the references are simply links to places where you can buy the subject's books or google.books links for the books themselves. They are not coverage of the books, nor reviews of the books or their author. The few that are reviews are blogs.

In summary - I can't see how this subject could possibly meet our inclusion criteria at this stage and what is available with regard to references would probably only support a brief bibliography of non-notable books anyway. Stalwart111 10:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on above findings. 09:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC).

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. After being relisted three times, there an obvious consensus to not delete (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chant Noël: Chants For The Holiday Season

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

I found no notability for this album. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T C N7JM 09:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or redirect/merge~~ - This album peaked at 3rd position on the Billboard Top Classical Album chart in 1994. This may be sufficient to meet WP:NSONG and WP:MUSIC. Certainly, if not, then the article should be merged with Chant (Benedictine Monks of Santo Domingo de Silos album) which is clearly notable. CooperDB (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look at Google News (which I should have done immediately) I was suprised to see reviews and/or commentary from The Dallas Morning News, the Lexington Herald-Leader and The Wichita Eagle as the nominator said they found "no notability". This is enough to meet WP:GNG without the need for WP:MUSIC, and is almost certainly only a portion of the contemporary coverage which did not get indexed by Google. I change my opinion to a full keep and suggest that perhaps the nominator review WP:BEFORE. CooperDB (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CooperDB. Enough coverage and chart performance exists to go past the bar for notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC), Revised 02:04, 23 August 2013 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Lukas

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

Initially suggested for BLPPROD but was removed without the author adding Reliable sources. All references are from networking sites and selfpublished source. SefBau : msg 08:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is pretty much completely unsourced, which is a clear BLP violation. To add to that, the artist does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO. T C N7JM 09:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article was unsourced but I've added a couple and there are a couple more. There's not much there from a WP:MUSICBIO perspective but the subject is obviously considered culturally significant in her own right. She was appointed as part of the official delegation to the London 2012 Olympics with the House of Switzerland (the Swiss Government's official cultural exchange program). She was then appointed by the Estonian Government to represent Europe in Washington, DC for the European Month of Culture in 2013 (see this from the Foreign Ministry). She's one of the only musicians on the list. It's not a cut-and-dry case but I'm not ready to call this as "non-notable" yet. Stalwart111 13:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the middle of the article remains unsourced, but if that is either sourced or removed, I'll gladly switch my !vote. T C N7JM 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can certainly remove all of the unsourced stuff but that wouldn't really be a reason for keeping or deleting anyway, would it? Either the subject is notable or not - the state of the article itself isn't particularly relevant. But by all means - remove whatever you like. Stalwart111 14:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess not. I guess I didn't know what I was talking about there. When I originally looked for sources, I couldn't find any of this stuff about the Olympics for some reason. Must not have been looking in the right places. T C N7JM 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? You didn't go looking through obscure announcements from the Swiss Government or official diplomatic news from the various Estonian embassies? I'm shocked! No seriously, the stuff wasn't particularly easy to find and, like I said, she fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG is borderline. It's an obscure claim to notability, for sure, and I'm still not even 100%. I certainly don't begrudge you or the nom whatsoever and I'm still at "weak". Stalwart111 14:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep. Notability has been proven. T C N7JM 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator requests closure. No outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vithal Balkrishna Gandhi

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

I tagged the article for BLPPROD however the tag was removed without any explanation or adding sources about the person. The subject of the article wrote a book, but I still don't see it passing the WP:GNG - that book was also made as an external link. SefBau : msg 07:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN for being member of Lok Sabha. ref1 ref2 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN but need to cleanup.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 10:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW - would seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN and probably WP:GNG. I can't help but question whether WP:BEFORE was undertaken given two of the articles on the first page of regular Google results are detailed reviews of the subject's biography and a Google Books search provides multiple references to the subject's time in the legislature. Stalwart111 11:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pardon me for my ignorance for not doing my own research regarding the article. Can this be close now? As I believe we have clear consensus that it should be kept. Thanks User:Stalwart111 for the tip. SefBau : msg 12:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wilson (firefighter)

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

Person whose article makes no particularly strong claim of notability except having done volunteer work (which could be notable if he got a major award for it, but isn't notable by itself) and being deputy fire chief of a small town (which isn't particularly notable at all). While the article is referenced to reliable sources, they don't rise even slightly above the level of purely local human interest coverage, and thus fail to demonstrate that he actually belongs in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. Only articles are about him being named Deputy Chief, or about the fact that he was part of a group that was the subject of an article. Caffeyw (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While notability is very marginal, the article asserts the subjects notability (his public service), which was of sufficient interest for multiple independent reliable sources (both newspapers in this case) to publish articles on the subject. This meets the minimum guidelines for inclusion set out in Wikipedia:Notability (people), specifically WP:BASIC and more generally WP:GNG. CooperDB (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both newspapers are local to the places he was living in at the time they wrote about him. Newspapers write "local guy does stuff" human interest pieces all the time, but that does not necessarily mean that every single person who's ever had their name mentioned in two newspaper articles in their own hometown newspapers for fairly ordinary, run-of-the-mill activities belongs in an international encyclopedia. If he'd gotten into the Toronto Star or The Globe and Mail or the Vancouver Sun for those activities then things might be different, and if he'd been named to the Order of Canada for those activities then things would definitely be different — but strictly local human interest coverage does not cut it if it doesn't rise beyond the level of "local guy does stuff". Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The humanitarian actions of the subject were notable enough for multiple professional journalists to report them to their readers. As per the notions layed out in WP:IMBALANCE, local notability is important to this encyclopedia, and providing relevant, and hopefully interesting biographies on individuals is not to be ignored. While this subject only just meets the standards for inclusion and the article is only currently a stub, it is a fact that multiple, independent references have been published on the subject as per WP:BASIC. We as editors must take a cue from appropriate independent sources (as per WP:GNG) to what is notable and, at least to me, clearly this subject has met at least the minimum notablity standard for inclusion. CooperDB (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. The two local news sources do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure he's a wonderful human being, but a couple of the local newspaper items is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Christensen

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article would have to be recreated in a few months, which is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and never grounds for inclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Christensen - he hasn't played a competetive match, but passes WP:GNG for being a talented footballer. My first 10 results in google when searching for "Anders Christensen Chelsea" included this detailed article] from Berlingske Tidende. In addition to the third citation in the article it should be enough for GNG. I believe there is a lot of more coverage out there, but I didn't do a very gopd job looking, as Scandinavian talents that are signed with the European top clubs tend to get a lot of coverage in the press in their homecountry. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. All Google searches I found seemed to revolve around him being signed, or winning such and suches award for this or that. Not sure how reliable BT is, however one website writing a story even if they're 100% reliable is not grounds for notability for a player that has not played a match yet at the pro level. Caffeyw (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article - By deleting it, somebody will just have to recreate it in 1-12 months time, when he'll have had made his league debut. So for the sake of convenience, the article should stay. Dddmortenbbb (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If and when they make their respective debuts, the articles can be restored at the click of button. Saying that they will be notable in the future is never grounds for inclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've been having arguments like this a hundred times now with people saying "this player will make his debut soon". Which as we know violates WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Coverage in press about Christensen seems mainly about potential talent. This is essentially subjective speculation on the part of the authors of the articles, there doesn't seem to be much actual content beyond the usual "talented youngster signs for big club's academy". Hojbjerg is a straight WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG failure. Fenix down (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. What coverage there is of Christensen is arguable BLP1E i.e. 'Danish youngster signs for Major club' and isn't enough to show notability. Giant Snowman 09:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis G. Jimenez-Arias

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

I tried to clean the article up a bit but I can't really see how this fellow meets our inclusion criteria. He wouldn't seem to pass WP:GNG, or WP:PROF. The article is an almost word-for-word copy of the profile in his book. Stalwart111 05:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. fails to meet any criteria for notability or inclusion on Wiki. Also agree that what is written appears to be lifted almost word for word from his book. In fact the one reference listed, links back to the book itself. Caffeyw (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. I don't see the coverage necessary to justify an article on this person. It's a CV, essentially. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Vigen

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

PROD tag removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. – Michael (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:33, 20 August 2013 (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. Michig (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Envelope-Content Splitting

Envelope-Content Splitting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Envelope-Content Splitting (ECS) is a technique for securely sending email without the use of PGP. Besides providing the benefits of secure email, ECS also enables users to edit their emails after sending them, even after the recipient(s) have read them, as well as providing complete protection from spoofing and phishing. ECS supports any pre-existing email addresses, such as Gmail, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.

The way ECS accomplishes the above is conceptually quite simple: instead of sending the message content through the mail network along with the email headers (the message envelope), the sending mail client sends the content (message body and any attachments) to a secure content server using a secure Web protocol (https), using an assigned content server password which is stored in the sender's device as well as the content server database. Assuming the content server is able to authenticate the sender, the sender's and the recipient(s) email addresses are inserted into the content which is then moved to secure storage. The content server returns pointers, one for the message body and one for each attachment, which the mail client inserts into the envelope. The message is then sent, with a canned message replacing the actual content, to the recipient(s). When the recipient(s) receive(s) the message, the recipient email client then sends a request to the content server, using its own credentials, to fetch the content. Please note that in order to be able to access the content on the content server, the content server must be presented with a content server password; one cannot simply follow the pointers in the envelope to fetch the content.

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 speedily deleted (G7, author requested) by Mark Arsten. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acidic mouth syndrome

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

Fails WP:NEO. I'm not seeing any reliable sources for this syndrome. The article's creator ~~appears to be~~ has the same name as this fellow, at one of only two ghits for the term. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have a page on Burning mouth syndrome. I could not find any reliable sources for this particular topic. Tinton5 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Can't find a valid merge or redirect target. Ansh6 6 6 06:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per two users above reasons. Original Authority (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've expanded both burning mouth syndrome and xerostomia in the past and I never came across this term whilst researching either topic. Burning mouth syndrome would not be the same as the topic of this page, which as about reduced pH in the mouth not a burning sensation. A more closely related topic would be acid erosion, but this page is mostly filled with content about xerostomia. We could delete with no merge and everything would be better covered and referenced between xerostomia and acid erosion. I could not find any sources at all on pubmed that use this term. I found some unreliable sources on a normal google search, but medical topics need to meet WP:MEDRS. One page used the term as a synonym for burning mouth syndrome http://demo.seven.ua/html_coding/demo-1059/mouth_syndrome.php . Note also that someone appears to be offering payment for editing on this page http://www.freelancer.in/projects/wikipedia/Refine-posted-wikipedia-topic-meet.html . Further to Clarityfiend's comment above, this person has the same name as the writer of the article. Lesion (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MEDRS. Andrew³²⁷ 13:50, 16 August 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Schweinsberg

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

A big promotional love fest for this musician. While he has worked for a lot of groups it appears it is only as a session musician or touring drummer so notability is not inherited from them. (eg not listed in members) The SGN Music Awards are not major. The Dove nomination is for part of a cast of multitudes playing for the Crabb Family. A small part in one of the many many dove nominations. His photography and graphic design shows no sign of being significant. Schweinsberg lacks coverage in independent reliable souces. Nothing satisfying WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC or WP:ARTIST. Last AFD closed on consensus due to lack of participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I found several passing mentions, such as his name followed by (drummer), I was unable to find the kind of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources required to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Appears to be primarily a session musician and doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find any significant coverage either, so I believe the article fails all notability guidelines. T C N7JM 09:33, 16 August 2013 (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. Michig (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Christner

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

Vanity autobio of bit part actor. Lacks significant parts in notable productions, WP:NACTORS. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Lacks notability and seems nothing more then an IMDB page for an actor. Caffeyw (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not passed the notability threshold for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Molecular DataSheet

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

I put a PROD on the article back in November 2010 because of lack of evidence of notability, but I removed the PROD when the author of the article asked for it to be reconsidered. I discussed the issues with the author, and he suggested that he would rewrite the article, so I left it. However, coming back to the article nearly three years later, I find that he never touched the article again, and there is still no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The article gives no independent sources, and searches produce the company's own web site, sites selling the software, pages briefly mentioning it, etc etc, but I did not manage to find a single independent source giving substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Non-notable, seems nothing more then a sales page about the software. Can't find widespread adoption/usage of it, and lack of any RS. Caffeyw (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any independent sources that were reliable and in depth for this product. The closest to an RS might be this peer-reviewed article by the software's creator, but the article is more about the underlying interface design than the product itself. Without multiple independent RS, the article fails notability guidelines. --Mark viking (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet in Downtown

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

Not notable. Unable to build upon article because reliable independent sources cannot be found. Blind Bella (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Street dancing and urban ballet are decent topics, but "ballet in downtown" seems to be either a nonexistent subset or a term used by a particular venture. No reliable sources indicate otherwise. Seems to be an example of original synthesis. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of independent, reliable sources to expand article. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:26, 16 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth Friary

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

I found no significant coverage for this monastery. In its current state, the article only says "Dartmouth Friary was a friary in Devon, England". Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. "Dartmouth Friary was a friary in Devon, England." Fantastic. Reliable sourcing and historical accuracy? Not fantastic. According to a website called Triposo (albeit probably not a reliable source), the place called Dartmouth Friary probably wasn't even a friary. Check it out: [23]. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This monastery existed and I would not oppose recreating the article if significant coverage can be found. However, all that I could find was a passing mention in this book, which is inadequate even for a start class article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source mentioned by Theodore! has no credibility whatsoever in my estimation, though I have no objection to it being brought to this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of an important controversy around the role of mendicants, and the most sustained attempt to bring a friary into the vast diocese of Exeter. JASpencer (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any offline/online sources for this? SL93 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It may be shortlived, but that does not prevent ther subject being an interesting contribution to the hisotry of the mendicant orders in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are hard to find, but I've found it mentioned in a few books and have dramatically expanded the article – it's quite an interesting story, in fact. The only questions are whether the title is correct (none of the sources actually call it this), and whether it would be better included as the early history of an article on St Saviour's Church, Dartmouth, if anyone cares to write that. —SMALL JIM 16:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now meets WP:GNG following great work by Smalljim. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work, Smalljim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 18 August 2013 (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.