Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 August	6 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - subsequent edits illustrate lasting impact. Transcendence (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Can be mentioned in the page of the courthouse where it happened, but shouldn't have its own article. Not notable at all, really. Cyanidethistles (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reputable sources establish notability for the shooting seperately fromt he courthouse itself. StuartDouglas (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EVENT, "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." This event has no historical significance or lasting effect. Also, "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." All the citations are from Dec. 4 and Dec 5 of 2010 with no followup since. Furthermore, consider "News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Transcendence (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'probably', 'may be' - and there are other, later references including this speech to the Senate which references this event specifically - http://www.reid.senate.gov/newsroom/pr_040913_reid_invokes_las_vegas_courthouse_shooting_while_discussing_gun_violence.cfm) StuartDouglas (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. News of no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major, high profile event of significant importance. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this AfD questions the very claim that this article is a "major, high profile event of significant importance", simply stating that claim doesn't seem to be a very good reason without further elaboration.Transcendence (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per StuartDouglas, WP:BEFORE, and WP:HEY. In 33 minutes, while also answering a telephone and the faculty room door several times during our busy finals week, I was able to find and add four pieces of information, with good citations, that this incident has had a lasting impact on court security and the issue of gun control. The US House issued a resolution; the labor union of the late court officer honors him; the Texas Ass'n of Counties uses the shootting as a case study; and many other sources have noted that this incident has had lasting impact. The nomination borders on the frivolous. Do you want to build an encyclopedia, or do you want to troll the Internet? Bearian (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, after seeing the edits, I was going to say you have a good point. But then I come here and see what you wrote. And you know what, I don't take too kindly to your words. I'm sure from your point of view this nomination makes no sense, but from mine it did. Just as from my point of view, it boggles my mind that you, as an admin, don't refrain from making personal attacks or from assuming bad faith, but I'm sure from your point of view, you have a good reason to ignore those guidelines. Transcendence (talk) 23:20, 12 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) 04:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Anna Everhard

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. As mentioned in the other, successful AfD. While she has appeared in at least minimally notable productions, she does not appear to have independent notability. I don't see any indication things have changed since then. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: A non-notable act. All indications are that this is a multi-wiki hoax by the same authors who also created Cesar David Yedra, Cesar Yedra, Cesar DeLuise and photo uploads of SCHUYLER and SCHUYLER1 Languages used by this individual under various disguises are multiple accounts not only in English, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian, French but impressively enough in Scots, Cebuano, Asturiano, Afrikaans, Corsu, you name it, they have to be online in all these languages. Pictures attached are also very dubious and might be to some practical jokers rather than the actual individual. This discussion is also part of the wasting of time process as well. - werldwayd (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she's done nothing to advance notability since the last AfD (for which I was the nom). Glenfarclas (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 9 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. Page blanked by article's creator, I turned it in a redirect to the book's author. Cavarrone 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Il Profeta di Satana

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

This book appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS requirements. The sources appear to be primary or unreliable except (maybe) this one. In my WP:BEFORE I have not found anything of substance. Side note, main contributors of the article appear to be SPA. Cavarrone 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:03, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedFan

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

No indication of WP:notability Only one independent source and that is not significant coverage. Google searches not finding anything significant despite initially showing 2.5m hits they disappear after around 300 hits. noq (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are reliable sources. Majorgeeks, Softpedia, C|Net, Silent PC review and PCWorld all had reviews done by members of their staff. It is also a very common program to use with other monitoring programs, such as Nagios, XBMC and Rainmeter. Bgwhite (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bgwhite. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bgwhite -Halo (talk) 17:39, 12 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 Closed without prejudice to renominate. Withdrawn as too broad -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Booker

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

Prod was removed without improvement by the creator. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding other articles created by the same author. Same criteria. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holy bulk deletions, Batman! 28 in one AFD? I'll grant that some probably should be deleted, but a quick review showed that there are reasonable soruces to pass WP:GNG for some of the nominations as well (such as Andrew DePaola). Just because one editor creates an article that might (probably will) be deleted is not a reason to delete every article created by that editor unless there is some sort of malice or bad faith involved. I don't see that here. It doesn't appear that WP:BEFORE was followed and I think we should take more time before sending all 28 to AFD just because one (probably overly-enthusiastic) editor created them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were all nominated because the claim of notability would reasonably be that they were NFL players. Since none have played a regular season game, and all contained about the same information, notability is in question. None seemed to have any other claim. Nothing about any of the subjects seem to pass clauses A, B, C, or D of WP:BEFORE. I'll fully accept a good slapping if my logic is horrifically flawed. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a good faith nomination, just one I disagree with. For example, Google News Archive is showing a large number of articles for DePaola, as does Barbieri. Yes, the articles claim notability through NFL play, but I would say that the articles--at least in these cases--are incomplete and notability can be found through WP:GNG for their play at the collegiate level. That's not an automatic assertion, it does still need to be addressed--but the AFD is so bulky that it is unwieldy to truly determine for each article.--Paul McDonald (talk)

Speedy close (not "keep") without prejudice to immediate separate renomination of any and all of these. As Paulmacdonald says, dealing with all of these in one big bulk nomination is too unwieldy. And at least one of the creator's bios has been recently kept. So I think each of them is entitled to separate scrutiny. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree I forgot to specifically mention "without prejudice to renominate" and that of course makes sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I'll close and renominate individually as needed. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:24, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marge's Son Poisoning

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

Unnotable Simpsons episode; page consists entirely of plot and that's it. Wimpyguy (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But you are right, article must be re-written. Vanquisher (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the page is terrible, as is the episode, but the current consensus is that all Simpsons episodes are notable enough for an article. Gran² 13:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a review to the article. Beerest355 Talk 19:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 5. Snotbot t • c » 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for above reasons. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:18, 11 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) 04:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bubble (2013 film)

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

Does not meet WP:CRYSTAL. Resources for this upcoming film are heavily based on one primary source. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This NYTimes piece is solely about the book, and regardless of its fame, the film does not get to reap the benefits. The others are primaries. I can find no news sources providing any coverage of this film. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Jethrobot, I could find no independent reliable sources for this. Nor does the IMDb listing [1] doesn't offer any links to substantive outside coverage either. Even a minor mention in an independent reliable source might be enough to justify a mention of this film project in the article for Meltdown (book) (and perhaps a redirect of some sort as well) but I didn't find anything.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now. Allow undeletion/recreation back when the film is released and if it gets the requisite coverage to meet WP:NF. Certainly policy allows this topic be spoken of within the articles on Thomas Woods and/or Meltdown until that time. Okay with it being userfied as release approaches. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 03:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable upcoming film. SL93 (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability per the general notability guidelines. All I can find are passing mentions, both last year and from last March, about this film about to be released. There does not seem to be any traction or significant coverage. Until there is some, it is too premature to have an article on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be entirely self-promotion of a project which keeps having its release date delayed and the existence, let alone notability, of which is not demonstrated. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculation. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:20, 11 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 merge to Thebandwithnoname. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenix

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

Probably best to merge this album's contents back to the subject's article space as it does not meet WP:V let alone have any qualities that make it notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 5. Snotbot t • c » 18:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're probably right but the article talk pages would be the appropriate venue for merge proposals. --Michig (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thebandwithnoname per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:22, 11 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 deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A10, "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Ghost Hunters." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Harnois

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

BLP1E/minor tv personality. Delete and redirect to the tv series. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for speedy after I noticed the prior AFD. We will see what happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE or REDIRECT to Ghost Hunters - Although Brian was in the first few seasons of Ghost Hunters and a season of Ghost Hunters International, he was apparently kicked off the projects and never mentioned again. He hasn't appeared on anything except an occasional internet radio show and an amateur paranormal show on YouTube called "Haunted R.I." Lately he's been accused of defrauding people in the fan community by taking money for guest appearances and never showing up, and ripping people off over merchandise sales. When the cops got involved he supposedly tried to kill himself. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED). Minor TV personality. As an aside, currently the article is a BLP violation, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 7 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} 00:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interconnectivity

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

Vague unreferenced personal essay Bhny (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure that this is a personal essay. This is seems more like a case of WP:DICDEF, and I'd normally be inclined to delete. However, the term does seems to have some coverage. Here, it's used as a metric of e-mail connectedness at the level of an entire country. Here it is used 85 times to describe collaboration. Here it is used as a category of network architectures. The problem is that the term seems to take on its own definitions across different disciplines (which the current article suggests), none of which seems to have any substantial coverage. I'd like to see more feedback from others before I make a decision here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The incomprehensible personal essay part is- The concept is closely linked to the observer effect and the butterfly effect.[1] It is often linked to the concepts of interconnectedness which is used to refer to the spiritual, and interdependence which refers to the moral, rather than physical or scientific.' Bhny (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interconnectivity, interconnection and interconnecteness are all related concepts. They are very broad concepts, potentially applicable to any system that has components or elements that interact. A Gscholar search for "Interconnectivity" reveals a broad set of articles, with no one field dominating. The term is used often enough to be highly notable, but I doubt we could write an article covering all its uses. The best approach may be a WP:DABCONCEPT article that points readers to various fields where this is a notable topic. The current article espouses a particular view of interconnectedness, that of interconnection producing fragility, and seems to have a too narrow/personal point of view. --Mark viking (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject is already dealt with much more thoroughly in our articles on emergence and holism. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it may indeed be that the English noun "interconnectivity" refers to all of the things mentioned in the article, it seems like a stretch to say that therefore there is a single notion of interconnectivity that applies to biological systems, network topology, etc. The one source cited does not seem to be adequate to establish this. I would need a good deal more convincing that synthesis of these different uses of interconnectivity is not original research. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:07, 8 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 deletion (A7). Non-admin closure. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Singhal

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

No references, no evidence of notability, advertising-like language. Article creator's user name suggests a conflict of interest. An earlier PROD was removed. HaeB (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete AFD is a waste of time. Article is a candidate of CSD#G11. The Legend of Zorro 20:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speedy delete as above - unreferrenced - Jethwarp (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability on ths autobiography. AllyD (talk) 05:51, 6 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 speedily deleted by User:Mark Arsten under criterion G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinthakayamanda

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

No sources other than a map. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is too quick (only a day after the article is created). The article is about a geographical area and there is a long standing consensus that such articles are kept if existence is proven. (which is confirmed by this. Hence keep. The Legend of Zorro 18:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The place passess WP:GEOLAND. My only concern is that the current article is a near word-for-word copy from OneFiveNine.com • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a population center to me. The AfD should neither have been created on a easily verified population center nor so fast after article creation.--Oakshade (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a populated place. There is at least one gov.in source that backs this up, but it appears to publish a list of individuals' personal details, in a way that would breach data protection legislation in other countries, so I am not linking it in the article. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.onefivenine.com/india/villages/Anantapur/Yellanur/Chinthakayamanda -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Doreen Biira

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

Delete: This article is about a non-notable journalist as per Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) - Collins719 (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject appears to be a national broadcaster in Kenya. While this article currently needs better references, this nomination lacks any sort of deletion rationale. - Dravecky (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD was created because I declined a A7 Speedy for pretty much exactly the same reasons as Dravecky. I haven't had a comprehensive look for sources but superficially it looks a genuinely notable broadcaster, albeit one probably unknown to the majority of people in the US. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as while a deletion rationale has been added, it's keyed on a failed proposal that was unable to gain consensus in its favor within a reasonable period of time. That is to say, Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is not an accepted notability standard for Wikipedia so allegedly failing it is meaningless. - Dravecky (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hitting "news" at the top of this AfD returned 9 hits eg: this, this and this, and a web search returned more. Granted, some of the news and web stuff is tabloidish press reporting on her good looks, but there's easily enough here to pass WP:GNG. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ritchie333. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:19, 11 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. Will redirect to the character page after deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Nathan

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

This article has been redirected/reverted numerous times. Subject is a fictional recurring, but not main character of a notable television series. Other than a link to the network (HBO) site of the show, no references at all. Article is solely plot summaries of the character, season by season, written in an "in-universe" style. IF the subject was a MAIN character, I would consider keep, but is a recurring character and the notability guidelines would point to simply including the character in a a list of characters. Therefore, I would delete and redirect to the appropriate list of characters of Oz (TV series) ~~and~~ ~~salt~~ ~~to prevent further re-creation~~. Safiel (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not asking for deletion, so it's actually not a valid AfD. Having said that, I see redirecting as appropriate, but question whether protecting that redirect is necessary. There may indeed be more sources forthcoming, and main vs. recurring character is not a distinction our notability guidelines make--it's all about the coverage. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On reconsideration, salting is a bit more than what is called for in this instance, so I have modified my AfD statement accordingly. Also, added delete to redirect in order to get within the AfD guidelines. I think my main issue is people will restore the article, but never do anything in the direction of finding sources or actually improve the article from essentially a useless plot summary. Looking at the fictional character herself, at least on cursory examination, I don't see enough coverage centering on her to justify a separate article. Safiel (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the article is about an important Latino and Female character in Oz- which was a major prison drama in the English speaking world. The complaints by the proposer suggest the articles needs reviewed and tidied up rather than deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locomotion is your duty (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ethnicity and sex of the character is irrelevant. Again, the character is a recurring character, not main character. Mentions of her in reliable sources generally mention her in the context of the overall show, rather than focusing on her directly. A paragraph on her on a "list of characters" page would be more than sufficient. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a separate article. Again, I would restore the redirect. Safiel (talk) 19:18, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Already listed in the main show as recurring with information there, not majorly noteworthy for own article. Murry1975 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks standalone notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:23, 11 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 redirect to Canada–Democratic Republic of the Congo relations. Since the edit history still exists, anyone is free merge however much they'd like to at any point, so long as they indicate as much in their edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Ottawa

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable and this is simply an address listing. also nominating:

Embassy of Guatemala, Ottawa
High Commission of Malaysia, Ottawa
Embassy of Jordan, Ottawa
Embassy of Chile, Ottawa
Ugandan High Commission, Ottawa LibStar (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Delete~~ - for all the reasons I've given in myriad AFDs for these non-notable embassies. It is almost to the point where we should add something at WP:OUTCOMES. There are plenty of notable embassies - historical buildings, the location of significant historical diplomatic events, the location of significant historical events prior to use as an embassy, the residence of particularly significant diplomats where much of that diplomatic effort would have been undertaken in the embassy itself and other things of that ilk. These, though, are not those and should be deleted. Stalwart111 06:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a merge of course. Stalwart111 11:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to:

per precedent and per WP:ATD. Pburka (talk) 18:11, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect all. These are not separately notable and, in any case, there is insufficient material to write a worthwhile article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all as per nom. Atrian (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the blue links provided above by User:Pburka. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. Embassies are not inherently notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:31, 15 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 merge to California Impressionism. California Plein-Air Painting redirects to California Impressionism. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California Plein-Air Revival

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

Title is original research, and the topic relies on WP:SYNTHESIS; there is no art movement by this name. JNW (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, there is an article in Orange Coast Magazine (November 1998): "Fine Art in a Big Hurry: Spearheading the plein air revival is a group of artists who go to Catalina . . ." Unless someone turns up more, however, I suspect this topic is covered sufficiently by the appropriate sections of California Plein-Air Painting. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of California Plein-Air Painting has related problems with original research. The primary author built a series of articles on the same theme; see Decorative Impressionism, which I'm also recommending for deletion. JNW (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 23 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) 05:04, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything salvageable to California Plein-Air Painting, massive original research problems. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:26, 11 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 merge to Vintage Computer Festival. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Computer Festival Europe

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

No need to create a separate European article in addition to Vintage Computer Festival. The European event is way to small to be relevant for an encyclopedia. TMg 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 22 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) 05:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vintage Computer Festival. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:55, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 5 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Goldwag

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

Notability tag was placed in 2009, doesn't seem to have changed much since. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 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) 05:06, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:41, 7 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) 04:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise of Kinaray-a

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

Book fails WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG. Notable-ish author, but not enough to transcend to his works. Dea db eef 05:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The author may be somewhat notable, but notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:41, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. My search only gave me two very weak references http://www.thenewstoday.info/2008/10/03/book.on.kinaray.a.now.out.html and http://www.philstar.com/arts-and-culture/198406/five-books-iloilo . Both sources only briefly mentions the book.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:58, 7 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shahre Mubarak Grand Masjid

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

The article fails WP:FUTURE . All sources are more than 2 years old. No new news on the developments. Naveed (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 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) 05:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major changes made in the article . Changed its advertisement format and kept its neutrality . User: Zeeshankm

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) 17:16, 5 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faraways

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

Procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion by User:Reddogsixwith the following reason:

Non-notable film. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. The talk page has indicated the article is about a trilogy and not about a single film and therefore the WP:NOTFILM may not apply. If that is the case, then what does apply is the trilogy has no independent, verifiable, secondary resources to support this article.

This has been challenged by User:Tertulius in a message sent to me (and multiple other administrators). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete article, Userfy back to User:Tertulius with the instruction that mere "existance" is not enough... finished or not, released or not, what can allow any film topic to merit an article is coverage in independent reliable sources. ONCE this has the requisite coverage, an article can be returned. Being unreleased and not having coverage in reliable sources means this film trilogy, no matter how wonderful he may feel it is, does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:55, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 5 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. While there are some people making good faith arguments in favour of keeping this article, they are not grounded in policy. On the other hand, arguments to delete are firmly grounded. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz in the Park Cluj Napoca

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

The article includes absolutely no sources of any kind purporting to demonstrate notability, which surely counts against any claim it should be kept. Moreover, searching leaves us essentially empty-handed. Sure, there may be a couple of local sources in venues of dubious reliability, but nothing even in the national press (let alone international), and nothing sustained, hence the thrust of WP:EVENT not being met. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local event, no lasting significance. Fails WP:EVENTLGA _talk^edits 04:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources have been added, but nothing that might change my initial verdict. We now have:
- Official site (not independent)
- Organizers (not independent)
- Myspace page (not valid, per WP:SELFPUB)
- Blog post (not valid, per WP:SELFPUB)
- Blog-like post on an events portal (most likely falls foul of WP:RS)
- News report (even if we consider Pro TV a reliable source, and keep in mind it's the most tabloid-y Romanian TV station, now OTV has been shut down, it's still a routine piece of local coverage, not indicative of deeper significance)
In sum: this sounds like it was a nice weekend and plenty of fun for the audience and the performers. However, the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia is rather higher than that, and I simply see nothing indicating it's been cleared. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best news sources I could locate for the article "Jazz in the Park" because there were no national mentions in national or international newspapers. In my opinion this festival has the potential to grow but only trough promotion. I am willing to fight for keeping this wiki article because it's a free entry event that i enjoyed and I would like to see grow and help other people enjoy the park in a different way. I searched the web and did my human best for adding reliable sources, but the truth is there are none at the moment. sergiu.topan ^Talk 14:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously mentioned, the deletion of this article would only harm a up-and-coming festival that is of local importance for now but is expected to grow. Again, it's a free festival and only by getting the word out more people can benefit from the opportunities it offers. I see no reason for delete. sergiu.topan ^Talk 14:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand you have good intentions, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote or to generate notability; it is to record phenomena that are already demonstrably notable through third-party independent sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if the event was notable but it did not receive enough attention from the local and national press because cultural phenomena is not on their agenda? We sacrifice a page like this and many other because of a faulty media system that promote non-values rather than cultural happenings. (On a private note, what I saw there was shocking to me. After 12 AM when the concerts ended, there were no traces of litter on the grass or on the alleys, everything was in the trash cans, and around them since the trash cans were too small. I've never seen such civilized people, but you don't hear that on the news "Participants at jazz in the park festival left the park clean" and you never will. That's just one of the many reasons I want to see this article up.) sergiu.topan ^Talk 10:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.197.25 (talk) [reply]

I also added a regional newspaper as a source and completly deleted the ref directing to the FAPTE(the organiser) webpage. sergiu.topan ^Talk 11:08, 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) 16:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not now, if the article and its thereafter becomes notable, recreation is possible, but right now it is not worthy it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - There are other Romanian festival listed with fewer references and lower notability and yet are not proposed for deletion. The topic will become more notable, the article will expand and therefore I see no reason for its deletion. Furthermore I've added regional news coverage since international is nonexistent. And please keep in mind it's the largest Jazz festival in Romania. This should give it enough notability.sergiu.topan ^Talk 21:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not go around making unsubstantiated claims. A source from just last month indicates that Romania's largest jazz festival is the Gărâna Jazz Festival, which has the additional attribute of being in its 17th edition, as opposed to the Cluj-Napoca event, which is just getting started. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem terribly keen on seeing this article deleted. I don't want to be unprofessional but I am starting to doubt your interests and your impartiality. Why didn't you propose Gărâna's page for deletion since the page has less references than Jazz in the Park's. And as you said, Romanian press is of little impartiality so the article that you cited falls under the same category. The same Romanian press (maybe not the same online newspaper) said Jazz in the Park had 20.000 spectators as opposed to Gărâna's 10.000. sergiu.topan ^Talk 23:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting both WP:GOODFAITH and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AllyD (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking for sources, Cluj-Napoca seems to be getting some decent jazz events in recent years at Casa Tiff, but I am not finding wide notice for this festival. That may come in future years, but as things stand it is WP:TOOSOON to demonstrate achieved notability for the event through strong 3rd party sources. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I suggest adding a brief referenced paragraph on the 2013 event into Cluj-Napoca#Cultural_events_and_festivals (so to that extent I am perhaps suggesting a merge). AllyD (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry for the last comment, in which I accused Biruitorul of impartiality. I let my emotions get the best of me. I have nothing to add to the article and now all I can do is wait for the decision. If there is someone with further suggestions I am open to discussing them. sergiu.topan ^Talk 10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or move to Incubator. This looks like more of a problem with the citations than the underlying topic. Pro TV source has been added and foreign language sources can be tough. This article does need some TLC though and it would be helpful if some more experienced editors assisted a new editor. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing particularly "tough" here. The only vaguely credible sources are this, this and this. The first two are local as well as blog-like. As for the last: well, not everything published on the ProTV site confers notability, I hope! It's telling that nothing featured in the main national newspapers (Adevărul, Evenimentul Zilei, Gândul, etc.). At best, being very generous, what we have is the "burst or spike of news reports" described at WP:PERSISTENCE. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:07, 14 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 redirect to Distance education. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distance e-Learning (Philippines)

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

Seems redundant to Distance education James^x1 2345 22:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Distance e-Learning is not the same thing as Distance Education or e-Learning.^[1] Distance Education usually follows a correspondence model and e-Learning typically relies on the use of the Internet and/or other Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in the residential setting/classroom instruction. Distance e-Learning combines the strengths of the two concepts by its extensive use of online communication to bridge the gap in geographical constraints. Kurt Valcorza (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why is the Philippines special? James^x1 2345 22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried requesting for a new article entitled "Distance e-Learning" but had been declined twice. Also, the term Distance e-learning was pioneered by the University of the Philippines Open University to describe the approach they use. KValcorza (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We would have really wanted to write about Distance e-Learning in general, not only about the Philippines setting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Distance_e-learning KValcorza (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question James: As indicated in the page, Distance e-Learning was pioneered by the University of the Philippines Open University the 1st Open and Distance e-Learning was held last year 2012.^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.musngi (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Distance eLearning (DeL) and distance education are related concepts, their main difference is in the core approach wherein the latter's focus is on the fact that the teacher and the learner are not required to be physically present for the course of instruction, whereas DeL takes off from that same concept with an additional point of using ICT-enhanced tools in the learning process. It is also different from just eLearning which does use ICT but can occur in our out of the classroom (face-to-face or distant instruction). Distance eLearning is a fusion of the concepts and methodologies of distance education + eLearning. This concept is pioneered by the UPOU in the Philippines. FBorre (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it doesn't really matter who "pioneered" it - for it to be considered notable enough for inclusion here, the concept itself must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A number of the new users here should have a quick read of WP:SPA. Dumping a brand new 60,000 byte article into Wikipedia isn't a great idea at the best of times, even worse an idea when there's a AFC submission that hasn't been submitted (from the looks of it). There is nothing to indicate anyone has previously created (or tried to create) an article at Distance eLearning (without "Philippines" on the end). Can anyone demonstrate (in 2-3 sources) that the concept itself is notable? Not different, not unique, not interesting... notable? Stalwart111 23:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 sources.

First and foremost, The Distance e-Learning model is optimized to overcome the issues/challenges faced in the Distance Education and e-Learning models. Dang, D.H. (2012, Feb). Reforming the Organizational Structure for ODeL: The Case of the Hanoi Open University. Hanoi Open University. Retrieved from http://icodel.org/icodel/resources/allproceedings/A/Dang%20full%20paper.pdf KValcorza (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the marriage of Distance Education and e-Learning (Distance e-Learning) has made a notable impact in course design practices in the shift from the print-based correspondence to online collaboration/interactive learning environment. Arinto, P.B. (2013). A Framework for Developing Competencies in Open and Distance E-Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1393/2433 KValcorza (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very good start, though given the claims that the University of the Philippines "pioneered" the concept, maybe starting with sources not from that University (like the first one) would be a better bet. Got a couple more not published by the University of the Philippines? Stalwart111 00:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We tried to create a new article at Distance eLearning (without "Philippines") but it was declined. Distance e-Learning is a novel concept that deserves a separate article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Distance_e-learning KValcorza (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6 more sources.

Kevin M. Murphy from Washington State University talked about potential solutions to the challenges/issues faced by university-based agricultural courses taught via distance education. He called for novel course designs and innovative assessments using techniques in the Open and Distance e-Learning framework to address the needs of agriculture students. Murphy, K.M. (2012) Bringing agriculture into the ODeL environment: Challenges and opportunities. Washington State University. Retrieved from http://icodel.org/icodel/resources/allproceedings/B/Murphy%20full%20paper.pdf KValcorza (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Denise Kirkpatrick from the University of Adelaide talked about "The state of the art in open and distance e-learning" in her plenary presentation in the 1st International Conference on Open and Distance e-Learning. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/38136640 KValcorza (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippine Rice Research Institute explored the relevance of open and distance e-learning in establishing an alternative extension system in the agriculture sector in the Philippines. Manalo, J.A. Frediles, C.A. Ilar, G.Y. (2012). How can open and distance e-learning be more relevant in agricultural extension system in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://icodel.org/icodel/resources/allproceedings/A/Manalo%20et%20al.%20full%20paper.pdf KValcorza (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link from ICDE International Council for Open and Distance Education official website that mentions UPOU as organizer of "International Conference on Open and Distance e-Learning: Creating Spaces and Possibilities" - link: http://www.icde.org/International+Conference+on+Open+and+Distance+e-Learning%3A+Creating+Spaces+and+Possibilities.b7C_wJjM3S.ips, Retrieved July 30, 2013N.musngi (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyatta University has also re-branded the institute of Open Learning to include e-Learning. It now becomes the Institute Of Open, Distance and e-Learning (ODeL) From http://www.ku.ac.ke/odel/index.php/about-us, Retrieved July 30, 2013 N.musngi (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Association of Open Universities featured "Ensuring Quality Education in Open and Distance eLearning (ODeL) through Virtual Learning Communities" by Melinda dela Pena-Bandalaria in AAOU Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2011, pages 13-23 From: http://www.aaou.org/journalfiles/Vol6%281%29September2011.pdf, retrieved July 30, 2013 N.musngi (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough for me. There are some duplicate people (in the sense that academics in the field seem to have reviewed the work of other academics in the field) but that's more a matter of being careful when you create the article. I have also hatted the list of sources and have moved one of your comments for clarity. Stalwart111 05:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the sources provided that would seem to demonstrate that the subject itself is notable, having received widespread academic coverage separate to coverage of either of its disparate parts. The article definitely needs work and some of the editors could use some assistance in terms of references, succinctness and WP:MOS but those are not problems that AFD can solve. Stalwart111 05:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, especially since the huge majority of the page (most notably, "Issues and Solutions") is WP:Copypasted from the sources, as evident from the formatting. As for the rest of the article, Merge to Distance education. There is literally no difference between the topic covered there and here, by definition. The article mostly talks about "distance education". Anything specific to the Philippines can be summarized briefly in a section in Distance education. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 07:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Gerbear, thank you for bringing up the WP:Copypaste issue under "Issues and Solutions". We're now working to fix this ASAP. Distance e-Learning is a new concept/paradigm pioneered by UP Open University. Distance e-Learning is a new concept that combines the strengths of Distance Education and e-Learning. This article is a school project of students at University of the Philippines Open University. Most of us are new to editing/creating an article on Wikipedia. Rest assured the issues you've pointed out will be fixed ASAP. Kind regards, KValcorza (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the infringing content. We hope you will reconsider to recommend keeping this article. KValcorza (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Distance education. Delete and merge can't be done for various reasons, but more importantly, the article has serious copyright issues. Useful and properly sourced information can be merged to Distance education, and the article can be kept as a redirect (alternatively, Distance education in the Philippines can be created and redirected to Distance education as well). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Narutolovehinata5, our class was tasked to write about Distance e-Learning (no emphasis on Philippines setting). We tried requesting to create a new article entitled Distance e-learning (no Philippines at the end) but was declined. This one got through. I have requested to move the article to Distance e-Learning (see Talk page). Distance e-Learning is a new concept. We think the subject deserves a separate article. Kind regards, KValcorza (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the copyright issue. We hope you will reconsider to recommend keeping this article. KValcorza (talk) 12:44, 31 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or attempt a selective merge - The article has copyright infringement which is a serious issue, however the article has information which could be redeemed as useful as stated above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:48, 5 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 Speedied per A7 '. Tawker (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Flop 4th Birthday

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

I cannot find any evidence in reliable sources that this rap battle was a notable event. As such, it fails the General Notability Guide. — sparklism ^hey! 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG/ WP:EVENTCRIT. Not finding any coverage about this event in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 This is a pre-organised event which makes no credible claim to significance; there are no sources so the content is un-verifiable and as there is no mention as to any lasting significance so fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper "enduring notability of persons and events" policy test. LGA _talk^edits 09:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've speedied it. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:48, 12 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. The article was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) under CSD criteria G11 and G12. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adithya Srinivasan

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

Non notable singer, the article is full of pov statements, the article has been constantly tagged up for speedy deletion, but its creator (which is the article's sole contributor) keeps removing it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article cites some good sources and it is possible to find out more here. POV statements have nothing to do with notability and are always fixable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All of the sources so far does not trace or indicate notability, he is an independent musician, which went viral with a youtube video that reached 10,000 view within few minutes and by collaborating and having a single (by his composition) released by Hariharan (singer), only that last fact could sustain his notability, however the song was not officially released by Hariharan, just being a promotional single, the subject hasn't been covered by multiple reliable, not-self published independent sources, all the articles are either minor, passing or trivial, most of them are the subject talking and describing himself, some of them are reprint. The article is also a copyvio, because it incorporates indiscriminately parts of the sources. The subject fails WP:NWEB, WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Also, all of the photos are also copyright infringement. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.adithyasrinivasan.com/biography.html. The page was deleted once for it before, and he re-created it exactly the same way again, including the old speedy deletion template! Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:36, 12 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} 00:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peyman Nasehpoor

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

It could be moved to a different namespace if the waw should be transliterated "ou" instead of "oo." Different authorities may recommend different transliterations for Perso-Arabic characters, but if his name is more frequently transliterated Nasehpour, then it should have been put in that namespace. The issue is now moot, since the article was delted. Jpbrenna (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable Iranian hand Drummer and mathematician. This person fails specific notability guideline such as WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO, the article seems nothing, but a promotion or publishing since its ~~creator and~~ main contributor, User:Kumarwiki1984 seems to have a pretty close connection with the subject (the user sole contributions are connected with this article) which may compromise its factual accuracy in a long term maintenance. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kumarwiki1984: If you consider the main romanization of this artist's name: Peyman Nasehpour, then you will see the notability of this musician and mathematician. In my opinion, Wikipedia must use the main romanization of this artist's name, but I don't know how to justify them to give up the wrong romanization, Nasehpoor and use only the main romanization: Nasehpour. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not evident per WP:MUSICIAN or WP:PROF. In particular his citations on Google scholar are too low for WP:PROF#C1, even for a low-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, sources are self published, no evidence of notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I was assured by an Iranian friend that he is quite famous in Iran as a musician, but I admit that evidence of this in English is hard to come by, and the modicum of Persian that I know is inadequate to the task of finding and translationg Persian sources. Perhaps some Persian Wikipedians could shed some light on this? Jpbrenna (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources in article. If as Kumarwiki1984 says independent reliable sources can be found under the "Nasehpour" romanization, let him/her add them to the article. —teb728 t c 05:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources in article. Kabirat (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - A Google search in Persian gives some news articles (mostly mention him in passing and among others, also some articles by the subject himself) but not enough to establish notability.Farhikht (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This artist is really a notable musician and a lecturer of Tehran Art University (according to his Linkedin profile) and has worked with some notable musicians such as Habil Aliyev, Mohammad Reza Lotfi, Peter Giger, Gevorg Dabaghyan, Majid Derakhshani, Hassan Nahid, Massoud Shaari, Elshan Mansurov and Gitti Khosravi (some pictures are available in his official website and other websites. Kumarwiki1984 16:15, 6 Augst 2013 (UTC).

— Kumarwiki1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unfortunately his Linkedin profile and official website are controlled by him and thus are not considered independent reliable sources. Thus they are of no use in demonstating notability. Has he received significant coverage in newspapers, magazines, books, and the like? —teb728 t c 22:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WoS shows 2 papers with a single citation between them. Agricola44 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Notability. This artist has received significant coverage in newspapers and magazines, both in English like "TehranTimes" and other medias such as "E1""E2" "E3""E4" and in Persian such as "HamshahriOnline" and "F1" [User:Kumarwiki1984] 8:42 AM Thursday, August 8, 2013 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarwiki1984 (talk • contribs)

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) 04:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Jun Shin

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. The I-League 2nd Division is not notable and Rangdajied (his current club) have not even played a game yet in the I-League. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I-League 2nd Division were not notable, what is an article about it doing in the Wiki? The player has competed as a professional in the 2nd tier of Indian football pyramid and will be turning up in the tier-1 this season. Plus, he has been covered by different news sources since at least 2011. Shovon (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Conference National in England has a page yet the players are not notable. As does the USL PDL in America. Same here. The league is notable as it is a national league in India. However, player notability counts on whether the league is fully-professional or not. As of this moment the league is far from fully-professional and it lacks more coverage. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would request to check Ghits too. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't help. The reports about his signing is just basic reporting that almost every player gets and in terms of the I-League 2nd Division coverage, the only actual coverage of the league came from two to three different papers. Not enough to prove that there is enough coverage of the league for the players to be notable. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Platyer has not featured in FPL, played internationally nor generated any significant coverage beyond the usual match reports. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 7 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. There seems to be a consensus here that this should be deleted because of WP:OR and WP:BLP issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians

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

This was previously nominated in 2007, and the result was no consensus. I have been discussing the scope of the article, and the harder I look, the more I think the article should be deleted. Under what circumstances can we say these things are "scandals"? Is a pastor admitting a "homosexual affair" necessarily a scandal? For that matter, do all of these people self-identify as "evangelical"? It would seem not. St Anselm (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep as someone with an interest in this field (and someone who has contributed to the article), it fulfills an extremely useful purpose by summarising these scandals in one place. Without it, a researcher would have difficulty finding all the subjects. The concerns the nominator has raised have not been contentious to date. There have not been any real arguments over whether or not something counts as a scandal - the term is reasonably well-defined. Likewise the issue of whether someone is an evangelical has not been a problem. Whilst some people may not self-identify as such, evangelicalism is well-defined by the Bebbington quadrilateral. SmilingFace (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question", and that "these principles apply equally to lists". St Anselm (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I think you are misapplying that policy. Belief relates to overall faith - eg christian, muslim, hindu, etc, not a subdivision of a particular faith. Evangelicalism is a movement within protestant christianity, not a belief. Its beliefs are the same as other protestant christians. Please use common sense as I doubt this is a contentious matter.

(2) But in any case, that is an irrelevant argument, as if there was a subject who was clearly not an evangelical, they could be removed from the list. WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD stress that an article that can be improved through editing is not a candidate for deletion. SmilingFace (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Without it, a researcher would have difficulty finding all the subjects." This is a poor argument for keeping the article. There are uncountable research questions and it is not the place of Wikipedia to anticipate each one and provide a summary of relevant articles. alanyst 17:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was the version of the article nominated last time. St Anselm (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and revert to worldwide scope - see my comment below. SmilingFace (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment whilst we should assume good faith on the part of the nominator, I do wish to raise some background in the interests of transparency. The article previously had a worldwide scope but in March 2013 the nominator renamed it and reduced the scope to america-only (diff [[2]]). There was no prior attempt to obtain consensus. I was on a wikibreak at this time and didn't notice the change (I would have objected if I was around). I queried this yesterday with the nominator and respectfully suggested that his change didn't improve wikipedia. I didn't find his answers convincing - his main concern could have been fixed with a simple edit that preserved the worldwide scope. This morning I returned the article to its former name and added back the non-US entries. The nominator promptly reverted everything I did. Forgive me for saying this, it's not meant to be a personal attack, but the pattern of the nominator's behaviour suggests they may be seeking to suppress material that is critical of evangelical christians, particularly in the UK. My reasoning for this allegation is that their change to the article's scope had the effect of removing UK scandals. Also, from the times the nominator is active, I would guess that they are in the UK. They may be worried that UK scandals will be included once again if they lose the consensus over the reduced scope of the article, which was their change. Hence they have responded with this AfD. My apologies once again for raising this, but it is a possible conflict of interest. I will declare a personal interest in that I recently re-created Tony Anthony (evangelist), a UK evangelical who has recently been the subject of a scandal, and I was wanting to include him in this summary article. However, even in the absence of this, I would still have challenged the nominator's changes to the article once I became aware of them. SmilingFace (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I live in Australia (as my user page indicates). St Anselm (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did have a look but missed that. But my point is still valid as there are a number of Australian scandals that were deleted by your change. SmilingFace (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

further comment - with regret again, I need to mention that nominator just deleted three entries from this article on the grounds that one was unreferenced (ref could have easily been added from the main article) and two were not scandals (in my view they clearly were scandals and had stood for some time). I reverted these and he immediately redeleted the unreferenced one whilst I was in the process of adding a reference. Given his nomination of the article, could this be considered tendentious editing? I unwittingly broke WP:3R whilst reverting these, for which I apologise - I could have done all the reverts in a single edit but thought it would give a better history if I did them separately. SmilingFace (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject area which has been subject to discrete official scrutiny. Inclusion ('evangelical', 'scandal') can be discussed in each case where necessary. I recommend that the page should be moved back to the worldwide title, then split to create an American sub-page including the Senate investigation. (Disclosure: I'm sympathetic to the message but appalled by these messengers.) – Fayenatic London 12:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being a non-encyclopedic topic - we do not have a list of "Scandals involving noted (fill in the blank religious leaders)" and this appears to be a mélange including "this person was divorced!" type scandals. The "Senate investigation" bit, by the way, does not even belong in this "list" at all. Collect (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of lists of scandals - just because there are no other religious ones doesn't mean that these won't be created in the future, nor does it deny the notability of this list. There's no need to delete the article to rectify your other concerns. SmilingFace (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore global scope. No policy-based reason given for deletion, which boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The topic is notable and widely treated as such in reliable secondary sources. Identification as an evangelical is trivially easy to determine, as is the status of an event as a scandal. There is no policy basis for requiring events in a list to be related except in terms of the list criteria. That the scandals occured mainly in the United States is no reason to restrict the list exclusively to the United States. The list complies with all of our policy requirements for list articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list unless there are similar lists created for scandals involving other religious or atheistic people (WP:EGRS). Why not a List of scandals involving American atheists? Or American Catholics? Or American Jews? Or American Muslims? I'm sure all four of those lists could be created in a couple of hours. I don't see the value of this list except providing amusement for nonreligious people. Considering that lists like this could exist for people of every belief system and the fact that "scandal" is a subjective judgment, I don't see why one group of people are being targeted here. If the decision is to keep this page, I'll work with others to create one for other religious and nonreligious people. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country and Catholic sex abuse cases in the United States. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone starts a list of (eg) Jewish scandals. Defining a scandal is not really subjective and it hasn't been a major issue with the article to date. SmilingFace (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a crucial difference here. Sex abuse cases are a crime that involve depositions, sometimes trials and settlements. I think that "Scandal" IS very fuzzy and it seems like many of those list were individuals conducting extramarital affairs or same sex relationships when they were stated to be conservatives. And, again, if anyone wanted to create an article on Buddhist leaders convicted of sexual abuse or Jewish leaders convicted of financial improprieties, those pages might be considered to have some merit to it because there is a court record and usually news media to document the circumstances of the event. Newjerseyliz (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO this looks more like a response to Catholic clergy scandals than an effort by the anti-religious faction. (And I really have to add that the fact that people are sinners is more often cited as a reason for religion, not against it.) Having said all that an encyclopedia is a place for plainly presented facts. Putting a lot of instances together to make a point (whatever point was intended here) falls under the category of original research, opinion, essay -- which are all discouraged by WP:NOT. I was also surprized to see that some people are included who are not even clergy. I don't think Richard Nixon would be included in a "List of Quaker scandals." Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that some of the "scandals" were what's called "human weakness", some were plain fraud, and some seemed more like cases of mental illness. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're speculating about the reason for creation. A summary list is an aid to research and a valid article - it is not inherently against policy. We have plenty of other lists of scandals - see the numerous links in Political scandal for example. If this one is inappropriate, so are all the others. We also have List of religious leaders convicted of crimes. I think perhaps a new title along the lines of "list of scandals involving evangelical christian leaders" would be sensible, but that doesn't require deletion. A scandal is something that discredits someone, irrespective of the cause. SmilingFace (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You're speculating about the reason for creation." Well, yes. That's why I said "IMO." Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a BLP nightmare. What is a "scandal"? What is an "evangelical"? etc. etc. Giant Snowman 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded to - the BLP issues are manageable and the terms are well-defined terms. The article is approx 10 years old and has not proved contentious. SmilingFace (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

questionable; if kept needs to be renamed As it stands, the scope of the article according to its title is overly broad; evangelicals in the US, at any rate, are exceedingly common. At the very least it needs to be renamed somehow to reflect that this is a "clergy" category (yes, I know that's the wrong word, but you understand what I mean). Personally I think we were better off with the original televangelist scope. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "televangelist" is that it's very limited in scope. There are very few non-US televangelists, and not all of the US scandals have involved televangelists. I suggested "list of scandals involving evangelical christian leaders" as a new title - not everyone would be considered clergy. SmilingFace (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potential for BLP violations; "scandal" is too subjective and sensationalist; will attract POV pushers and edit warriors offended over inclusion/exclusion of their favored/despised evangelical personalities. alanyst 17:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential BLP violations are not grounds for deletion. Scandal is not subjective/sensationalist. If we say a list of evangelical scandals should be deleted, we must also delete all the lists linked in Political scandal, for example. The same concerns about POV pushing etc apply. Lists of scandals are an established type of article and have not been overly contentious or difficult to manage. SmilingFace (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the list does not assert notability of the set. WP:LISTN demands that the list topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". While individual scandals and "recent scandals" have been covered heavily, I can't find any significant discussion of the topic of American Evangelical scandals as a group in reliable sources. --JFH (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have twisted WP:LISTN by selectively quoting it and adding the word 'demands'. The actual sentence is (emphasis mine): One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. The policy also says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. WP:LISTPURP includes The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. I would submit that this (structured / summary) list article is a valuable information source. SmilingFace (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit to not reading the guideline carefully, but it doesn't seem right to say you can turn a non-notable topic into a structured list and avoid deletion, especially when listed items are not notable. "Valuable information source" is exceedingly vague; any list of information is potentially valuable. The guideline admits there is no consensus here, so I feel comfortable with my argument. --JFH (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What if I believed in the Napolean complex theory and I started an article on Scandals involving shorter than average men? I think that would be obviously WP:OR. It's the same here. The list is only here because (IMO) people tend to think religion and scandal-free behavior is or should be related. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To repeat what other editors have said, what is a 'scandal', and what is an 'evangelical Christian'? Quite frankly any negative categorization list is a clear delete to me. This landed on WP:BLP/N yesterday regarding the addition of negative information about a female pastor (or whatever they're called) that while salacious (I'm sure) could hardly have been construed as a scandal. Or could it? It depends on one's point of view, I suppose. That's the problem - the criteria is simply too subjective and a violation of WP:BLPCAT. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't looked into every article on the list to see what these "scandals" are all about, but I assume most of them are are not notable enough for their own articles, and it's not encyclopedic to list people based on minor scandals or simply personal problems. WP:LISTN should be interpreted stictly when it involves negative things about living persons, due to the general BLP principle of not giving undue weight to controversies etc. Also, WP:BLPCAT says "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation" and I think this should be applied to lists, as well. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:OR, strong possibility of current/future WP:BLP violations, and failing WP:BLPCAT explicitly. Ansh6 6 6 18:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete-Its to WP:BLP violations what honey is to bears, Its as absurd as a page titled Scandals among Professors of Philosophy or Scandals among certified actuaries, besides, It fails WP:BLPCAT Sanju87 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly purging). These are unpleasant businesses which I would like to sweep under the carpet, but they have happened. This concerns hypocrasy by high-profile ministers of religion, whose lifestyle has proved to fall short: they have failed to practise what they preached. I appreciate BLP issues, but that merely requires everything to be properly sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 11 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 merge to Harmonica. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glass diatonic harmonica

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

There is no evidence anywhere of notability. The article is sourced only to the manufacturer's web site, and searches have found nothing better. For example, the first few Google hits are this Wikipedia article, another Wikipedia article, a Wikipedia talk page, a page on a site for glass artists to publicise their work, MySpace, a personal web page created by the creator of the "glass diatonic harmonica", a link to wikirage which is currently a dead link, and so on and so on... (A PROD was removed by an editor who gave an edit summary saying "I'm not sure of its notability".) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having tried hard to save this article I am forced to agree with you, but suggest that an excerpt be merged into Harmonica per the existing merge flags rather that deleting baby and bathwater. Fiddle Faddle 09:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that "Glass diatonic harmonica" is significant or notable enough to be included in any article? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My reading of the description of the object is that only the cover plates of this harmonica are glass, which might deserve an addition to the main article on Harmonicas but nothing more. FigureArtist (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Harmonica, as above. Doesn't appear to have enough reliable sourcing to have its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to see one or other of the editors who suggest a merge tell us what about this is notable enough to even be included in the article Harmonica. As far as I can see, nobody but the manufacturer has ever given any coverage to it at all. If someone else has done so, please let us know who, and where. What exactly would be merged? The statement that someone (apparently totally unknown) has made a harmonica partly out of glass, and that nobody has taken much notice of it? We really don't need to clutter up articles on notable subject with such un-notable information. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:N would indicate that the topic does not merit a separate article, lacking individual notability has nothing to do with the reasonableness of a merge, and acts thusly to inform readers. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 03:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The barest extract. It is 'of note' though not notable per WP:N, that someone has made them out of glass. But I don't feel strongly enough to say more than that about it. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge as suggested by User:FigureArtist snd User:Nwlaw63, as a verifiable topic that lacks notability for its own article. Reasonable to serve the project. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 03:44, 6 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} 00:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Road of Life: Cancer Prevention for Kids

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

Non-notable non-profit organization. Although I was able to find three sources dating back to Sept-Oct 2003 that mainly relate to a one-man walk across Ohio [3][4][5] (now mentioned in the article), I don't think this is sufficient per WP:ORG. The organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Edcolins (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - needs wikifying if it is kept. Some places a non NPOV wording occurs (e.g. "Various organizations have helped Road of Life in many ways.") and rm external links from the body of the article. Either should be a source or an EL. Lesion (talk) 22:20, 22 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A bit of coverage about the walk, and that's it. Insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:44, 31 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 5 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. Moving as desired can be done through the normal process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 505

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did see a few scholarly references with details regarding "HD 115404", including Shimansky et al (2011). Praemonitus (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if it turns out that this article is kept, it should be moved to HD 115404 then. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Praemonitus (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A published paper with one of this star's names in its title, and a higher number of other papers that mention it non-trivially (not just in a list of many similar stars) makes this one stand out among the recent Gliese AfDs as being somewhat more notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 29 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, Wifione ^Message 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:28, 11 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) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Focus with Martin Sheen

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

Apparently this is a scam, per http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/production-firms-stir-suspicion-among-networks-would-be-clients/2012/12/26/d6eda81a-4a04-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html Elizium23 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the above, I've nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3. Ansh6 6 6 06:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if you read the article provided above, though, it doesn't actually suggest the series is a hoax, only that it hasn't aired yet. The conduct of the producers has "stirred suspicion" but that's not the same thing as being a "blatant hoax". The article itself includes coverage like this which simply suggests that a small group of producers (having received agreement from Sheen to appear) have been working hard to promote it. I certainly don't think it's anywhere near notable yet and the article should be deleted. But we should delete it via AFD, I think, lest we speedy delete something as a hoax that turns out not to be. Stalwart111 07:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability /notoriety. I was tempted to speedily delete as spam for a scam but this discussion can be left to run. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since speedy declined. Not notable if real; if fake, the article as it stood before recent overhaul would have presented it as real, potentially doing harm to people out in the real world. Ansh6 6 6 16:42, 5 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord John

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 29. Snotbot t • c » 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any coverage: no evidence it meets notability requirements, either by coverage or other achievements. If you find any sources let me know and I may change my vote. Note: shouldn't be confused with Lord John White, a 1980s Irish band, or Lord John, a contemporary mod revival/tribute band. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:01, 5 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) 04:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Shimborske, Jr.

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 29. Snotbot t • c » 06:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A biography by his son and an unnamed and probably casual interview are not really doing it for me for quality sources. A look at the news archives for the subject doesn't turn up much in the way of significant coverage (and some of these articles are clearly not the subject). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:55, 7 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} 00:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AVTECH Corporation

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

I do not see notability here. GThe rankings are not high enough to imply notability in the absence of good sources DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:06, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found only trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 6 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 redirect to List of All My Children characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Cortlandt

AfDs for this article:

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

Far more notable AMC character articles have been deleted and redirected to here: List of All My Children characters. For a character that has been on the show for 21 years one recent source is simply insufficient to establish notability. Wlmg (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expand or Redirect - Either expand the article to include more real world, third-party data to ensure it's notability (which may or may not be able to happen) or redirect the article into List of All My Children characters. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion? Really? I could see proposing redirect or merger, but deletion seems a bit extreme. This character has plenty of notability, being the child of two central characters in the series, and there is real world notability, so the article should be tagged for additional sourcing, not deletion.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:59, 31 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominator. A character whose notability has yet to be substantially proven. A redirect ensures that when notability pops up, the page history can be used as a starting point.Beerest355 Talk 18:44, 5 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Shiqiang

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

No assertation of notability. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 01:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think he would probably meet Wikipedia:Notability_(politicians) criterion 9 (sub-national legislators) by his position on the Xinyang standing committee. The standing committee is a fairly small body that holds the real power, and Xinyang has a population of 6.1 million in its administrative area. I'm not sure how many members are on that standing committee, but it's usually only a dozen or so. ~~All the companies he's chairman of seem to be owned by the city, so he's a politician rather than a businessman~~ (EDIT: no they're not, I was wrong about that), but some of them are fairly big; Xinyang Auspicious Tea Group apparently has assets of 1.85 billion RMB (~200 million USD). He probably doesn't qualify for notability as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, because even though it's supposed to be an important national level decision-making body, in reality it has no power at all; it also has about 2000 members, and the 'national committee' just means the whole thing, not an important subcommittee. "11th member" isn't a ranking either, it's a mistranslation of "member of the 11th CPPCC" (2008-2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.54.254 (talk) 16:31, 22 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:37, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:22, 5 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 redirect to ego trip's Miss Rap Supreme. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chiba (musician)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 22. Snotbot t • c » 00:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ego trip's Miss Rap Supreme. Vanity article about an aspiring rapper that appears to have no notability apart from that series. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:20, 22 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:38, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the show, she lacks any independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:39, 7 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Dunn (Vine)

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

Non-notable indivual lacking Hits and GNEWs of substance. His vid boost high hit rates, but notability is not inherited or for that matter popularity is not an indicator or Wikipedia notability. References are primary, example of his work, or trivial. Appears to fail WP:BIO and associated guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of a case of someone notable for one event only. One of his Vine videos garnered direct coverage in several reliable online sources (Gawker, MSN), but it really seems clear that this one video is the only thing driving any coverage in reliable sources. He appears to have been notable for a 1 week period in May, 2013, over this one video/event. Producing a Vine video with a ton of views is not (yet) in and of itself grounds for notability, as far as I know. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The video you're talking about has 1.6 million views. All of his videos combined have 15 million views, proving that other videos on the channel are popular too. https://www.youtube.com/user/ericvdunn/videos?sort=p&view=0&flow=grid Soulbust (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand that, but that is unfortunately not grounds for notability. We generally don't include biographic articles on persons notable for only one event, and the Youtube channel views don't really factor into notability. If you can find followup coverage, or anything that suggests he's still being covered in reliable sources for something more than the video from May, then you may have a better argument.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 02:40, 22 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:39, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note / Keep Followup coverage has been added. Dunn's Vine account has reached 1.5 million subscribers/followers. The Wikipedia page has even been linked in Ref #12 (#12 as of August 9, 2013). Soulbust (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely helpful! I think this is a borderline case, but the evidence you've supplied of at least one instance of continued coverage past the bump from the first Vine of his to become a hit suggests that he may be a notable individual. I'd really like to see more than the one instance (I'm personally discounting most of the original coverage), but this is enough for me to be totally fine if this were to close as a keep or no consensus. Good stuff, thanks for following up! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:41, 10 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. Soft deletion :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mode 6 Warriors

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

The three games weren't listed in GB64, or List of Apple II games. Google search provided no relevant hits. Sigma 7 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, checked the edit history of the original IP address - around that time, edits had a high chance of being unhelpful. As of now, the IP is blocked for being a proxy. As such, prod. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:44, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:19, 5 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 merge to Super Soaker#CPS (Constant Pressure System). (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CPS 2000

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

Water gun fancruft that lacks coverage in reliable sources. Its scant sourcing consists entirely of water gun fan sites. BDD (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Super Soaker#CPS (Constant Pressure System), less the unsourced statements like "most powerful stock water blaster sold in stores," which while believable (I've gotten hit by one of these suckers), need to be independently verified. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete I consider the page as useful and informational and used it several times. I would prefer this page not to be deleted. And fan sites probably are the most reliable sources available on this subject because there are no commercial interests to write about water guns that are no longer being sold. Hyper.nl (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness doesn't have anything to do with our notability criteria, so it's not a very good reason to keep. And if fan sites are the most reliable sources available on a subject, that's a good indicate that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Jethro. Ansh6 6 6 03:29, 12 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Index of dance articles

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

This is a list of no obvious added value over the regular category system of Wikipedia. LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An alternative could be a merge into Outline of dance, but there is not much to merge, just a redirect probably. LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merging to Outline of dance is a functional option per WP:PRESERVE. Upon comparing the two articles, this article actually has many topics that are not present in the outline article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are many links that are not in the outline article. But I don't think it is worth preserving them. The index article seems almost like a random selection from the Category:Dance and its subcategories. Almost like it was once just a personal user list of articles. There is no obvious reason of what the articles have with each other in common separate from dance. The outline article in contrast contains main dance topics, not just apparently random topics like Academy Award for Best Dance Direction, Hip hop dance and Open position. LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:40, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN, lists and categories are complementary, not antagonistic. Warden (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree lists and categories are complementary, but how does that fact relate in particular to the article Index of dance articles? I still have no clue as what would need to be included in this list. All pages in Category:Dance and its subcategories? These are 1000s of articles about Dance. LazyStarryNights (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there are lots of potential entries then this is a good reason to have a page of this sort. Categories work in a mechanical way and so lack intelligence. The page in question can be tailored to show topics in a more structured way, helping to guide the reader through the forest of information. Warden (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But such guide does not work with a list of 1000s long. Dance is just a too broad category to capture in one list article. The guide function is already provided by Outline of dance. LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Afterwards, perhaps a merge of Index of dance articles, Outline of dance and Category:Dance into one article could occur to provide readers with a cohesive, comprehensive page that covers the many topical aspects of dance. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The list is fine and if work needs to be completed on the list or it needs to be merged, that is not a valid reason for deletion. SL93 (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As some of my comments have hinted before, based on progressing insights this discussion gave me, I like to withdraw my deletion proposal. Instead I like to propose a merge of Index of dance articles into Outline of dance. Since I see no valuable information in Index of dance articles as explained above and I have seen no concrete enough opposition to this idea yet, I'd like to propose a merge by just making a redirect without using any data from Index of dance articles. How can I achieve this from a procedural point of view? I know how to propose a merger under normal circumstances, but since this is my first deletion proposal, I am not sure how to move forward and "convert" it into a merger proposal. For example can I just add the merger tags to both article and link to this discussion? Or should this discussion first be closed and open a merger discussion? LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:23, 8 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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroleadership

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

This term is non-notable, it is associated mainly with one particular individual and his enterprise, and there is no evidence of significant acceptance in the fields of brain science/neuroscience and/or management/leadership Lapabc (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be some use of this term in Forbes, Economic Times, and in BusinessWeek, the latter of which contextualizes it in reference to the sciences and business practice. There's also some coverage of a book by the same name in these German sources ([6][7]), but it's not immediately clear to me that these refer to them same concept. In any case, while this might seem like a neologism at first, there is actually pretty good coverage of the term that fulfills the general notability guideline. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In spite of a couple of mentions in newspaper articles, I don't believe that this neologism has achieved enough notability to deserve an article. It is really PR-speak rather than an actual field of endeavor. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting what is a trivial mention. The above articles provide in-depth coverage of the subject. You also can't honestly call this "PR-speak" when the sources above are considered reliable. There are also entire books published on the subject here and here and it is discussed with some coverage in other leadership books here and here I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding notability, the claim by the originator who coined the term in 2006 is that this is "a new field of study," repeated in the Wikipedia article. He claims to have "written many of the central academic and discussion papers defining the [field]." However, the originator runs a consulting enterprise that depends on PR. The test of notability should therefore hinge on it being recognized as a new field, not on how successful the PR effort is in getting it mentioned in the mass media -- a defining function of PR. If one searches the academic literature, including psychology, biology, and a subset of neuroscience and so on through the WEB OF KNOWLDEGE, only a single hit is returned. If one searches the entire biomedical literature for all neuroscience and brain science through NLM's PUBMED, only one additional hit is returned. Searching through JSTOR which includes business & economics, humanities, law, psychology, education, social sciences, and more, only one unique hit is returned. The entire English language academic output since 2006 shows only 3 mentions, but they fail the notability test because reading/inspecting the contents of those articles reveals that when "neuroleadership" is discussed it is referenced back to citations to the "Neuroleadership Journal." In what sounds like an academic publication, the "Neuroleadership Journal" is in fact a product of the originator, that exists only on one of his websites. Thus the appearance and use of the terms in the academic fields the originator claims to be penetrating shows that it is a result of the orginator's PR effort, not an accepted new field of study. Furthermore there are zero hits to support the originator's claim of having authored many academic articles. Indeed, the originator claims to have earned a " professional doctorate in the Neuroscience of Leadership from Middlesex University" when a search of that university's degrees and courses of study fail to show that such a degree exists. Wikipedia editors are not necessarily in a position to evaluate academic legitimacy claims, however we can and do recognize self-referential PR efforts. That is what is going on here. The appearance of the term in "reliable sources" by itself does not impart "notability" if they are the result of PR exposure. Wikipedia routinely turns down pages on individuals who are not sufficiently notable, even though they have may authored books (note that the originator does not have a Wikipedia bio page). Wikipedia routinely turns down pages on commercial products. There is objective evidence that this is not a new field of study, while there is evidence that this is part of a commercial PR effort, therefore Wikipedia should turn this down until sometime in the future when the legitimacy and notability are not questionable.Lapabc (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about the creator, it's about the topic, so it really doesn't matter how little credibility the person has because the article isn't about him. The creator also doesn't need an article for something to be written about a concept he has created (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Your last point about coverage in reliable sources as a result of PR has no basis, because there's no evidence you've offered that this is so except simply saying it is; it makes absolutely no sense why coverage in Forbes and Business Week would be disregarded as PR when these publications are not regarded as PR machines. They have an editorial board that is well-regarded and if this really was simply PR, there's no reason it would have been received coverage outside of routine PR reporting in these particular sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's about the topic which is defined in the questionable Wikipedia page as: "NeuroLeadership is an emerging field of study focused on bringing neuroscientific knowledge into the areas of leadership development, management training, change management, education, consulting and coaching." My comment details non-notability in the fields of management, education, neuroscience, etc in which it is supposed to be an emerging field -- it objectively is not. As for dismissing my conclusion that penetration into mass media magazines is the result of PR as having "no basis" and is simply an assertion, you are wrong, it is a professional judgement based on experience. Perhaps you are too credulous in believing that because Forbes et al. have editorial boards "there's no reason it would have been received." That statement of yours is, in fact, an assertion and a belief. It's a belief that runs contrary to the way PR is practiced in which edited, respected mass media are specific targets -- see for example: http://www.ereleases.com/prfuel/stories-placed-magazines/ Do not misunderstand that I say we should disregard Forbes et al. because they can be compromised -- that would be absurd -- I am saying that in *THIS CASE* there is a clear and documented PR agenda that is not entirely credible, so the simple appearance of hits in these magazine is not automatically "notable." I did not raise the PR issue, the other person who voted against this term did. I happen to agree, but I spent most of my effort demonstrating that the communication vehicles of the various fields of study this term purports to represent in fact do not recognize it, in these self-identified fields the term is essentially non-existent and "non-notable." If that situation changes, perhaps a page would be justified, but not now, when the meaning of the term itself can't be supported. Lapabc (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is a professional judgement based on experience. This is also called original research. I appreciate the amount of effort you've put into your arguments, and I can fully understand why it is frustrating that topics with little scientific basis get attention like this even though they are not recognized in their field, but we will have to agree to disagree here. There is some additional coverage of this term In the Sydney Morning Herald and The Economist, the latter of which even describes it being "filled with banalities." It's not positive coverage, but it's press all the same. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:28, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic clearly passes Wikipedia's threshold of notability, specifically WP:GNG, with entire articles in independent, reliable sources devoted specifically to the topic. Source examples include: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. These are not passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:42, 8 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) 04:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piranha CMS

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

Does not seem to have established notability. the one sean 20:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I simply whish to know in what way it has not established notability? The framework has been around for over a year, has over a thousand downloads and we have close to 8000 views on our website which is mainly documentation intended for developers. In what way can I improve the article to prove notability? Tidyui (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section at Wikipedia:NSOFT#Inclusion can help with these questions. Please also note the policy on conflict of interest. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Tidyui (talk), the usual way to show notability is to use a citation to a reliable independent source. You might want to read the notability guidelines for example. Often popular software is mentioned in some independent trade publication. Or you could try a combine article on the company as well as the software with which it is associated (even if it does not "own" the software but publishes it as open source). Sometimes local press will cover a company getting funding, building a building, announcing quarterly results, etc. Even sources in other languages (e.g. Swedish) would suffice if a bi-lingual editor could verify that what is said in the article is paraphrased from that source in a neutral manner. Just self-claiming something was downloaded a zillion times is not enough: all sorts of people do that. Someone besides the writer or user of the software needs to care enough to publish something. Also, using the personal pronouns above might imply that the Wikipedia: Conflict of interest guidelines might apply. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 17:51, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to establish notability. ~KvnG 05:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. (For anyone doing searches, note the false positive of EDO Corporation's Piranha Command Management System.) AllyD (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links to external web publications about the projects. They are however in Swedish. --Tidyui (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[13] is a blog post so not necessarily reliable. The other is a good start though some may argue that such a short article does not constitute significant coverage. We need to see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Do you have any others to offer? ~KvnG 22:20, 6 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) 04:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odjazdy

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

I found no proof that this music festival is notable. There is an article on the Polish Wikipedia, but it is unreferenced just like this one. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this festival meets WP:GNG. Gong show 12:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am leaning delete, but let's wait a few days and see what happens to the pl wiki article which I just nominated (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2013:07:21:Odjazdy). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:11, 5 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) 04:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire on the Mountain (1999 film)

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

I found no coverage for this film. The creator said on the article's talk page, "At present only one source of info is to be found online: The director's site and webshop directs questions about the documentary to mysticfire.com, which is down; permanently or at the moment is unknown". Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a possible WP:COI article as well. MarnetteD | Talk 01:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looks like documentary filmmaker David Cherniack, as a two-time Gemini Awards nominee,[14] could merit an article to which this could be included and redirected. Looking at author's editing history, I am far from convinced of COI, though I would grant we had a SPA author who stopped editing in September 2012.[15] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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) 21:20, 29 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:10, 5 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) 04:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal financial benefits of military service

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Personal financial benefits of military service

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

no references, just a few facts hashed together to create a stub of an article Rayman60 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed this nomination on behalf of Rayman60, who posted the above at the article's talk page. No opinion on the merits, except to note that the nominator's analysis seems pretty accurate. WP:OR may be relevant as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 3 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 5 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of symphonies by Robert Schumann

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

The list is, for one thing, very short and it covers material already dealt with in List of compositions by Robert Schumann. An article on the symphonies would probably work, but I don't think a mere list does. Herr Beethoven (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 1) Is "being short" a valid reason to delete? 2) The subject is notable and presented consistent as part of Category:Lists of symphonies by composer. 3) This list is the only place where the symphonies' incipits are shown. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point 2 of above. List passes WP:LISTN and WP:LISTPURP. Ansh6 6 6 16:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) By itself, "being short" is not enough to delete something, but in combination with other factors, it might contribute. 2) The subject may be notable, but wouldn't you say it is already dealt with in the List of compositions by Robert Schumann? The symphonies are listed there, too. I was thinking of this guideline when I opened this discussion. As to the other lists in the category, three (Mozart, Haydn, Graupner) wrote a very large number of symphonies (definitely warranting a list), String symphonies (Mendelssohn) is formatted as an article rather than a list, and List of symphonies by Johannes Brahms was created by the same user in the same manner as this list. I probably should have made this a group nomination with both the Brahms and Schumann lists, but I wasn't aware of the Brahms list. 3) While pretty, I don't know if the incipits are really all that helpful or necessary. They might be used elsewhere, though (i.e. the symphony articles). Herr Beethoven (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say WP:Content fork applies to articles, not lists. If there was a section in the "List of compositions" page that was symphonies only, it might be less of a keep for me, but without, it's a more useful navigational tool than the "Orchestral compositions" section. Ansh6 6 6 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Herr Beethoven: 3) Those incipits are important and helpful exactly in List of symphonies by Robert Schumann because they tell me which symphony I'm looking for, without having to visit each symphony's article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and a relevant sublist with extra detail. Agathoclea (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined list of a notable bulk of work. Needs expansion, not deletion. Them From Space 17:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy has been quoted as to why this list should be deleted. It was intended as a navigational tool to support other articles. If you think the article is in the wrong place or needs to be expanded in scope then I am happy to discuss that, however, I believe this article serves its purpose. I belive this article successfully treads the fine line between adequate detail to meet its purpose and so much data that it cannot be used as an internet resource. At present my only regret is that I have not had time to do more article like this. Op47 (talk) 18:41, 9 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) 04:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manyang

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

"Just because it exists doesn't mean it is notable".

This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I have reviewed the sources given in the article and have found the following:

Source 1 is a a dead link to a .biz website— as such, there is no way to verify its content or existence, and so cannot be used to establish a claim of notability. That aside, a .biz website would not have been likely to qualify as an independent reliable third party source anyhow.
Source 2 is a link to a personal web page about ju jitsu, not about "Manyang".
Source 3 was probably a link to a page created by the European Perguruan Pencak Silat Manyang training group in the Netherlands— they rent out a gymnasium there and hold classes, and the link likely discussed the origins of "Manyang"... though we cannot know for sure since it now turns up a "page cannot be found" error instead, and seems unlikely to have been an independent source of information in any case.
Source 4 appears to be a link to another Dutch "Manyang" fansite— though this time the page does exist, it does not appear to be an independent source and does not appear to have editorial oversight (much as any fansite).
Source 5 was a link to another Dutch Pencak Silat web page on Manyang, but it, too, now turns up a "page cannot be found" error.
Source 6 is a link to a paper written by an anthropology Ph.D. candidate on Manyang— it is a paper that was never published, and as such constitutes an instance of original research which cannot be used to establish a claim of notability.
Source 7 is a link to an article about Pencak Silat, which is a legitimate notable martial arts style from Indonesia, but the article does not actually mention "Manyang" anywhere.
Source 8 is a link to a Lycos members personal web page, which is also no longer in existence and wouldn't have been likely to have qualified as reliable or independent if it were.

I then conducted a search for independent reliable published sources on the subject of this article, and found nothing to suggest its notability (it has been mentioned on the Internet in a few places, but nothing appears to have been published on this art form). If it actually does exist (which it seems it does) and actually is a legitimate Indonesian martial arts form (which, as far as I can tell, is less certain), it has yet to attract the attention of a reliable independent source— on these grounds, the article's subject seems to fail to meet the general notability guidelines, and therefore I propose it be Deleted. KDS4444^Talk 03:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May be notable on the Madura Island in Indonesia, but doesn't have the broad, non-niche coverage to pass WP:WPMA/N or WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Styles of silat#Pencak Silat I didn't find the independent sources necessary to show this should have its own article, but I think merging is preferable to deleting when there's an obvious place to merge.Mdtemp (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain I agree (nor am I certain that I disagree)... It seems to me that if the subject of the article fails notability, then it shouldn't have even a redirect. On the other hand, I acknowledge that this art may someday become notable and worthy of a standalone article-- would that justify a merge rather than a delete? Honestly, I do not know. KDS4444^Talk 06:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After its own AfD discussion Styles of silat was just reduced to a listing of articles so merging would not work - perhaps a redirect to Pencak Silat would be more appropriate than merge.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The styles of silat was a full article when Mdtemp made his comment (someone restored the part removed at AfD). I don't think a redirect to Pencak silat is a good idea because that article doesn't have sections on individual styles. I don't see any good redirect targets. Jakejr (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to show this style meets WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 00:57, 12 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) 04:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Master Management Group

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

No encyclopedic importance; trivial awards; sources are basically Press releases or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an advertisement and the "references" section is a list of websites showing what they have bought and sold— I don't think the original author understood the purpose or format of Wikipedia citations, and has certainly not used them correctly here (if he/ she did understand, the article probably would never have been written). Further, an Internet search on the subject of the article turns up nothing but trivial coverage— no independent reliable third party coverage of the subject in any depth appears to exist. KDS4444^Talk 05:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company is mentioned in reference to some projects such as this and this, but it's rather routine coverage of building-opening annoucements and does not constitute significant coverage of the company. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, KDS4444, and I Jethrobot. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:36, 11 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) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tichester

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

Article lacks citations, lacks notability, has poor spelling and grammar, and is very much orphaned. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting as well that while the article does cite a considerable number of references, almost all of them are primary sources and few to none of them pass our reliable sourcing rules. For instance, content about a Toronto Hydro infrastructure project and the area's Toronto Transit Commission service is sourced to the companies' own websites rather than to media coverage — while most of the other content is sourced to maps, city council or school board committee meeting minutes and other stuff that doesn't count as valid sourcing. Out of fifteen sources being cited, I see exactly three that aren't total junk — and two of those three are supporting content about an apartment fire in the neighbourhood, which isn't notable enough to even warrant being in the article in the first place, while the third is a book which is being cited to support a single statement that doesn't actually demonstrate the notability of the neighbourhood at all. Like all populated places, the neighbourhood would most likely qualify for an article that was actually good and properly referenced — but this one isn't either of those things. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to York, Ontario, the (former) municipality it is (was) part of. Redirects are cheap, and any relevant information can be salvaged there until/unless a proper article is recreated after this gets WP:TNT-d. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 13 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women LEAD

AfDs for this article:

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

delete, this org fails GNG specifically WP:ORG. It is sourced but the sourcing is dubious and I still believe this is promotional. Here is a breakdown of the sources provided.

the Forbes article is by a contributor, similar to wikipedia thus it can not be considered reliable.
In Peacebuilder there is literally one line about the foundation "Women LEAD, the organization co-

founded by Claire and Claire, does its work in Nepal." this makes it more about the founders and not siginificant coverage for the organization.

Peace x Peace [[16]] states the exact same thing
[[17]] is a compnay profile nothing more
The Hoya is a student newspaper about a student project [[18]]
[[19]] is an interview with a co founder but is primarily to promote buying tickets. And the voices from the frontlines are contributors just like wikipedia thus again not a reliable source.
[[20]] The Huff post is a blog by the founder. Thus again not a reliable source.
(removed mistake) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several other editors pointed out in the first Articles for deletion discussion that it's notable enough for coverage in multiple secondary sources.

You wrote above: "Forbes article is by a contributor, similar to wikipedia thus it can not be considered reliable" - can you please explain what you mean by this; how is the Forbes article "similar to Wikipedia"?

Neither is this article promotional - yes the Peace X Peace reference includes two very brief mentions of that organisation's awards event last December: that doesn't make it "primarily to promote buying tickets", and more importantly doesn't make this article itself promotional for Peace X Peace or for Women Lead.

The WYSK reference used in the article [21] cannot possibly be described as a "plug for funding". The two links "6" and "7" above that you've found from WYSK and Indiegogo were never used in the article as references, so can you please explain what they've got to do with this article?

Also, you wrote above "Here is a breakdown of the sources provided", but have so far only criticised 6 out of the 16 (now 17) sources provided. What's wrong with the rest of the sources? Ruby Murray (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the information is trivial. The biggest exception to that is [[22]] the rest are plugs for funding or more focused on the founders of the foundation. I personally don't think the company warrants an article, however the founders do. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the references in the article is a plug for funding of the subject? Ruby Murray (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[23]] and [[24]]. Also to answer your question about Forbes if you notice this is from the contributor section, meaning I could sign up as a contributor and publish it. It doesn't count as a reliable source. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those two references was ever used in the article, so it's puzzling that you keep mentioning them. Which of the references in the article is a plug for funding? Ruby Murray (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may help you to read WP:NOTRELIABLE, it doesn't have to reflect that in the article the sources themselves is what happened. It states that "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." It's 11:30 pm so I am going to bed for the night. I'll check this in the morning. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly refused to answer my question: which of the references in the article is a "plug for funding"? You first tried to speedy-delete the article as spam, and then took it to Articles for deletion twice on the grounds of promotion plus notability, and every time I ask how it's promotional you dodge, and try to steer the discussion toward notability and sources. You refused since December to reply to my question of "where's the spam?" on the article's talk page, and in both AFDs to point out where the promotion is. This time, you've actually falsely accused me with fake references in the nomination to try to argue that the article is promotional. This is beginning to feel a bit like a vendetta. Good night. Ruby Murray (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my answer doesn't satisfy you. I have answered several times but you don't like the answer. That's ok that's up to you, we all have our opinions. You can take that as a vendetta, mistaken beliefs or whatever makes you feel better. As far as the WSYK, you are correct that is a mistake on my end. I used the term Women LEAD when I searched and these came up. I had several tabs open and I confused the ones in the article and the ones from my own search. The other sources are still lacking though. Number 1 is a contibuted story to Forbes and not by the magazine or website. Number 2 shows as not found [[25]]. Number 3 [[26]] shows page ok. Number 4 is about the founder Claire N which describes her and not WomenLEAD as the recipient of the award.. "Generation Peace Award winner, Claire Naylor" (this is why I said the founders may warrant their own article). #5 is a self published interview by Claire C, hence unreliable and self promotional. Reference 6 is the companies own website which can not be used to establish notability. Number 7 is again more focused on the founders and not the business. Number 8 is an Interview of the founder. Number 10 is a blog, thus fails WP:RS. Number 11 can not be verified. Number 12 is the Hoya which the founders themselves state in 10/12 "the two co-founders want to make Women LEAD sustainable and reputable both at home in the U.S. and in Kathmandu" This makes it sound like it's not a notable company. Number 13 is just company info, again doesn't support notability. Number's 14 and 15 are the exact same article. The relevant passage " Claire Charamnac, representing her friend and co-founder and Generation Peace Awardee Claire Naylor, pointed out how much Claire has accomplished at the age of 22. “Imagine what she may do in the next 10 years!” Women LEAD, the organization co-founded by Claire and Claire, does its work in Nepal." This again highlights that the founder is the award winner and not the company. Number 16 is a list that names WLead as 10th in the category, for leadership, not a winner thus does not show notability. Number 17 mentions LEAD once that I can find saying "Women Lead Nepal, a NGO run by two Georgetown graduates in Kathmandu, organized the same on Women’s Day in which volunteers danced and marched around the roundabout in Jawalakhel chanting ‘My Future: My Voice’" Which is very trivial. That's leaves number 9 as the only partially acceptable source. That's a answer for every source you have listed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to learn that the references you incorrectly added to the nomination, and your subsequent assertion that "the rest are plugs for funding", were mistakes on your part, but you also need to cross them out in the nomination immediately to avoid misleading other editors, even if unintentionally. Ruby Murray (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:ORG just like it did eight months ago. The nominator seems to falsely assume that the sole purpose of references is to prove notability, disregarding the fact that primary references can be perfectly acceptable sources. As for notability, the wikilawyering gymnastics being used to discredit all of the sources disregards the fact that references such as this recent article, from June 2013, easily demonstrate that this organization meets general notability criteria, with significant coverage independent of the subject. The writeup in the The Hoya similarly demonstrates notability. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 21:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Gobonobo would you consider the asking that the criteria being set out at WP:ORG to be wikilawyering?

Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

inclusion in lists of similar organizations, Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is
quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

or from WP:GNG that require ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" or "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If it is why do we have them listed the way we do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs)

Keep, exceeds WP:NOTE, good deal of secondary source coverage among multiple reliable references. — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 6 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Roundabout (Colchester)

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

Challenged prod. Unreferenced since 2011. GDallimore (Talk) 23:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 5. Snotbot t • c » 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of sources out there:

Colchester: a history
Capacity Measurements on Experimental Roundabouts Design at Colchester
The Commercial Motor - volume 135
Surveyor - volume 141
TRRL Laboratory Report - issues 674-687

AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add some of these to the article then? Especially as none of them appear to be online and you seem to be the person with access to them... GDallimore (Talk) 12:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use the magic word. If you need a more accessible account, try the entertaining version of Richard Bartle. Warden (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to an article on manners after your original comment is just the worst form of hypocrisy. Go look at yourself in the mirror then go do something useful. GDallimore (Talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original comment? I do not understand what you mean. I tend to be brusque and so try to mind my Ps and Qs. My nom-de-plume was first used by Churchill who famously said, "...it costs nothing to be polite." Warden (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per User:Colonel Warden -

Why not add some of these to the article then? - Be WP:BOLD ~~& do it your bloody self! ... It's COMMON SENSE.~~ -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unable to read full paragraphs? As I made clear: I do not have access to these sources so how can I add them? GDallimore (Talk) 17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're unable to do a simple Google search then ......?, It's not rocket science to dig deep & find the info needed!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added the Colchester:a history source, but was unable to get snippets from the other sources mentioned above by Warden (talk · contribs). In any case, this particular road structure appears to fulfill WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; sources have been quoted herein and also added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above (and use WP:SNOW) Fbryce (talk) 18:47, 7 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 Sachin Dev Duggal. No consensus on Nivio, default to keep. Jujutacular (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Dev Duggal

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

I was working on Amazon's mturk.com and noticed some type of SEO firm was keeping tabs on this page. Starter of article was "niviocloud," the same company this guy owns, so it appears to have been done by a pretty crafty publicity firm that knows how to use citations, images, and section headers on here to make their people look legit. Anyways, the person doesn't appear to be notable so much as a classic Internet self-promoter, and whatever companies he's affiliated with still appear to be in a seed or early stage. Possibly violates WP:NN and WP:CRYSTAL, but I want to hear what others think. Also nominating the following related page for the same reason: Nivio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Jd027 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Edit: This article has a speedy deletion history - see User talk:Abatra Jd027 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one yes, these are both highly promotional. That alone is not grounds for deletion, so perhaps there could be some kind of merge into a single notable article. This one has at least attempted to make him look notable, but the promotional language is just too over-the-top, and many of the sources are just promotional web sites. I can take a look to see if the company article can be saved....

Follow-up: I spent (too much) time on the nivio company article and think it can be justified. It seems Duggal is "no longer with them", and continues to get some press, so is probably the more notable. Duggal sure is good self-promoter. For example, the product was listed in the WEF award of 2009, but over time Duggal claimed it was his personally. A lot of other assertions seem "optimistic" to say the least: announcing effectively the same product in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Looking a bit at the history of these two, there have been a couple minor edit wars of people adding allegations about the company shutting down offices or laying off employees, but these are hard to verify, and were quickly reverted. One perhaps related source is http://ibnlive.in.com/news/excms-dirty-money-trail-punjab-to-switzerland/43046-3.html which alleges some tenuous connection to a scandal. But not sure that is a reliable enough source, and the connection is only touched upon. But after extensive rework to English instead of marketingspeak, I vote to keep the company article and delete the personal promotional one. Although perhaps not deep, the press is quite wide, since the nivio company appears to be spread all over the earth: Switzerland, UK, US, and Australia to some extent. W Nowicki (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes another note: it appears that the photo at File:Sachin Dev Duggal @ the World Economic Forum 2010.jpg was really taken in 2009, since it duplicates File:NivioCEOSachinDuggal.JPG which was uploaded in 2009, which agrees with the EXIF data. So that photo should be deleted too (alas, on Commons). Anyone know how to do that? W Nowicki (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really appreciate your heavy-hitting. I still have to respectfully disagree with your judgment on Nivio and advocate to delete both articles. WP:CORP requires substantial coverage of the source. Within the first three pages of Google, for what it's worth, on "nivio," I find mostly promotional materials, unrelated subjects, and very similar articles on the same two topics only - recent ones about receiving venture capital funding (WP:CRYSTAL) (supports the notion that it's still in a very early stage) and about bringing some sort of cloud service to the iPad and other devices. Although I realize that "depth of coverage" is a very subjective term, in my personal application of the term, I would expect a company with deep coverage to have multiple articles delineating its context or niche within the industry, multiple innovations and development through time, its financials, and its significant current standing within the wider business world. I just don't see that with this company; I fear we are left with mostly self-promotion. Jd027 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sounds like we need at least a third opinion on if the company article is now only promotional. Can we delete the vanity article on its founder in the meanwhile? I did yet another pass on it to distinguish between a company saying something will happen, vs. the article making an assertion about the future, which clearly would be Crystal. The coverage includes several by professional journalists, not just bloggers. I also tried to avoid the usual blind repetitions of press releases. Clearly articles about historic companies that have no current standing whatsoever are quite common, and we need more of them in my opinion, to counteract recentism. The company has been around nine years, which in the Internet world seems long-lived (?!?). At least I find it very useful to have these narratives of companies that keep announcing things and getting money, and doing it again and again. Clearly doing it once is too common! There is no guideline (nor should there be) that says articles must be deleted on subjects that are good at self-promotion, which is all that a quick Google search turns up. If that were true, we would not have many on politicians. :-) W Nowicki (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but tag for improvement -- This has the feel of autobiography, effectiely ADVERT. There are elements of CRYSTAL in it, but I suspect that the multiple awards suggest that the subject is significant, not merely a good self-publicist. I thus take the view that the article is saveable, but it needs a lot of work. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So which of the two articles is the above comment talking about (or both)? At a minimum, the rules on bios of living persons says all uncited claims can be removed without debate in the Sachin Dev Duggal one. If it is going to stick, then it might be worth the effort. I still think the personal article should just go, since most of the sources are self claims. The WEF award for example was the company, not the person (and five years later the product is still not out?). Other "awards" are sourced to his own press releases or speaker blurbs, and are quite dubious. Even the patents which I cited in the nivio article, seem to be granted in 2012 for techniques that I used as a student in the 1980s, which were not really novel back then (available in literature since the 1970s). That is why I still favor a compromise of keeping the company article with at least some independent sources and more balanced language. Or maybe split these two discussions to clarify which article gets the axe. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 20:36, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't want to get too involved but just scanning through the edit history I see some serious WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION issues. Per this comment the subject's IP address is 67.180.32.177; that address has groomed this article extensively. In addition, as already pointed out by Abatra, the bulk of the content was at creation by User:Niviocloud, an WP:SPA whose username also suggests a COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope someone else does get involved please so we can break the impasse. Still think the bio should go but keep the company since it is still around, but of course can wait for consensus, if any. I got tired of all that uncited promotion sitting around so reduced the personal vanity article down to a neutral statement of facts verified from the sources, as per Bio of Living Person guidelines. The other observation is that the claim about a foundation is probably not very meaningful. Private stock by definition is not very liquid until the company goes public or is acquired. I could not get the foundation web site to work for me, so no idea how legit it is. W Nowicki (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G11 (promotion). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:43, 12 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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Speed

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

There are few newspaper sources. The sources that do are routine. They do not qualify under IAAF because IPC World Championships are not that. Consensus has been disability athletes need to either pass WP:GNG or win a Paralympic medal. I'd be all for changing that, but the discussion should be established on the sports notability page unless there is an WP:IAR rationale I am not seeing here or a reason to apply those guidelines here. LauraHale (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I declined this in WP:AfC because it was brief, but going off WP:NTRACK indicated that notability was established by competing in the Paralympics. It did not occur to me that the term Olympics would exclude the Paralympics without it being made explicitly clear in context. I removed the PROD on the understanding of the WP:ATHLETE guide as it is written rather than with any knowledge of the discussions that led to the consensus described above. Under that logic Speed had passed WP:NTRACK even if he failed the WP:NOLYMPICS (which admittedly I hadn't checked because I thought he'd already passed WP:NTRACK) Rankersbo (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't claim to have any expertise on the question of notability, so I'm happy to leave the final say to others. However, there does seem to an issue here of whether Wikipedia's policies are being applied consistently. For example, there are articles on many similar Paralympians who have not won medals - e.g. Sam Harding, Jake Lappin, Sam McIntosh, Matthew Silcocks, Lindsay Sutton, Jack Swift, Brydee Moore, Torita Isaac, Erinn Walters and so on. My starting point is that there should be parity of treatment - either keep them all or delete them all. DanielDoyce (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @ DanielDoyce, As the primary writer of most of those articles, I think they would likely pass under WP:GNG. If you removed the APC, Athletics Australia, and ASC links, you would have at least 5 or more newspaper sources for each article. When writing about Paralympic athletes who do not clearly meet notability standards, I try to make sure they pass WP:GNG. If I pruned the article to only newspaper sources for Speed, what content would be left? Yes, I really, really, really wish the standards were the same for Paralympians as they were for Olympians, but they are not and you play the hand you are given. :/ WP:NSPORTS would be the place to advocate for a change in the guidelines regarding presumed notability. Good luck as I have been there, done that and been unsuccessful. If you think the articles you cited do not pass WP:GNG, please nominate them for deletion yourself. -- LauraHale (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @ LauraHale, I think your issue is more about referencing than notability. In any event, I have now added more references so the answer to your question about how much content would be left is "most of it". DanielDoyce (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ DanielDoyce, No, they have to do with notability. IPC World Championships for Athletics do not count towards notability, nor does the mere fact that a person competed at the Paralympics count. Thus, for we are left WP:GNG. Before nominating this article for deletion, I searched Google News, Trove and Newsbank. (I have pretty good knowledge of and access to Australian sources as an Australian sport related PhD student.) I also checked the archives for the Canberra Times, The West Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald. I found no sources that would not be considered routine. For me, GNG/notability requires generally at least 5 to 10 newspaper sources of which one generally provides extensive coverage. Your sources: "Ja, Cystal. "Aussie Paralympic athletics squad named". The Age, i July 2008." This is routine and provides few details about Speed. I cannot access the following source but it does not appear to be completely about speed: " "A guiding light at Beijing Bird's Nest". Australian Jewish News, 12 September 2008." This leaves ""Exceeding the Speed limit". Melbourne Weekly Eastern, September 2007, p12." a regional weekly newspaper as the only source fully about Speed. Then two routine references. He does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Compare the coverage in this article to the articles you cited. -- LauraHale (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the AfC reviewer who accepted the article. From what I now see, it looks like this was an honest mistake. Mr. Speed's best claim to notability, unless I am very much mistaken, is his participation in the Paralympics. Per WP:NOLYMPICS,

Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic 
games or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan.

By my reading, this is written to explicitly exclude paralympian non-medalists who do not meet any other guidelines. Mr Speed clearly fails the WP:GNG. The only other plausible inclusion criteria is WP:NTRACK. I have not seen evidence that he passes any of them (although this was where my error in the initial review occurred). I am left with the conclusion that unless more evidence can be found, Mr. Speed is not notable under current policy. Of course, we can change the policy, which is a separate discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current guidelines for WP:NSPORTS are frankly ridiculous and contradictory. WP:NCURLING says a competitor is presumed notable if he or she has participated in the Paralympics. Why single out curling? If it's good for curling, it must be good for athletics as well. St Anselm (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do we want to place this AfD on hold, and start a discussion over at wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) in order to hammer out what the notability guidelines should be before we start deleting articles based on those notability guidelines? Tazerdadog (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would favor that, but the last time that discussion was had, it came down to "Athletes with disabilities are just not as inherently notable." They want to make the guidelines have few caveats, not more. Beyond that, while a 2012 Paralympian might be inherently notable, a prior generation Paralympian is unlikely to be so even with a medal. The question then comes down : does the project inherently desire these types of articles? (I would favour yes but I am not going to try to force my view against consensus, which NSPORTS has not been inclined to give.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't won a medal, so unfortunately doesn't meet the main criteria. I don't think NCURLING is valid. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a paralympian. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a paralympian does not automatically make him notable--he fails WP:NSPORTS. Jakejr (talk) 01:06, 12 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) 03:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invensis

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

A nonnotable outsourcing company Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has reliable sources and it fully complies Wikipedia's requirements for company notability, which says that the company must be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself or listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications." The company has been featured in a case study originally published by Ivey Publishing (from The Ivey Business School) in 2008 and later by Harvard Business Review. Also its Managing Director was featured in an interview published in CIOL.com about his experience in managing the company. The company has also been listed in three industry rankings. In two occasions (2008 and 2011) as one of India's Top ITeS and BPO Companies published by Dun & Bradstreet (a major business information corporation). Also it was ranked once among the top 10 most promising Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) organizations in India by Silicon India, one of the most important IT media in India. So the company has independent publications for both requirements. All the sources mentioned above are included as references in the article. Any feedback to improve the article is welcome. JM Salamanca (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC) — Jmsalamanca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Objection. Please see Wikipedia's significant-coverage and independent-sources guidelines. (They're summarized at WP:42.) I haven't paid to buy a copy of the case study; it could easily be a reasonable source. But an interview might easily not be considered "independent". Also, rankings don't always help to prove notability; we want to see enough actual paragraphs of text describing Invensys, not entries in a ranking table. I know it's frustrating; but, instead of trying to force your company into Wikipedia, you should spend your time on providing useful products and services, and growing your company, until someone unaffiliated decides to write a Wikipedia article about the company. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:24, 23 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company does not meet WP:CORP.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:35, 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) 00:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion of NN company. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:32, 11 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) 03:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legiotex

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

Yet another European Commission 7th Framework project with no real notabilty. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody I do not understand that it serves this section. What should I write here so that the article is not clear?Rubendesign (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, but author should be answered. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? What are the parameters to know whether or not it notable? I think it's very subjective. Articles are different for people according to their tastes or interests. For example for a doctor my article will be important while for others no. Is notable for example Frazer Diner? Not for me but for you can be wonderful. Everything is subjective.(talk)Rubendesign (talk) 08:46, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find evidence of notability. Notability guidelines are not subjective. We need significant coverage in multiple (i.e. two) reliable sources. Notability criteria is discussed here and a reliable source is defined here. ~KvnG 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:29, 11 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bike Race (video game)

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

An editor's prod was contested. This fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the PROD tagger, and agree with the nominator's rationale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Found out that this game is somewhat popular and I really believe that Wikipedia should have an article about it. Thank you. Megahmad (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: iTunes preview on the game, "App Store Game of the Year 2012 in selected countries!!! 30 MILLION DOWNLOADS!!!" Megahmad (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The game has some popularity as an app (which in itself does not, of course, support its notability). However this popularity has garnered several reviews of the game from App Review websites like these: [27], [28], [29]. It was also, at one time, ranked #1 in the top free apps for the iPad by CBS News. ~~See what happens when you follow WP:BEFORE? It's like magic!~~ I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I always follow WP:BEFORE. The first three sources are unreliable. Since when is finding unreliable sources and a trivial mention considered magic? Normally editors make such comments when they actually do show notability. SL93 (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This review from Inside Social Games seems more reliable according to their about page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 14:53, 15 July 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) 00:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm familiar with this game, and I'm rather surprised that the game, which is both well-made and hit number 1 on the App Store Free Games Chart, seems to have virtually no coverage. (It may be important to note that, while CBS is the source, its not their charts, it's Apple's official chart.) I'm leaning towards delete, but want to search further for sources first, as part of the reason could be the incredibly generic title... Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 19 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 24 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at this before and I can still only find the one in-depth source (ISG, not WP:VG/RS but seems reliable). It's a bit uncommon that top games don't get covered, but not unheard of. There simply isn't enough material and references to write a proper article; one review and mentions in a top game lists are not enough. Bottomline is that this fails the WP:GNG by not having multiple reliable in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Other mobile game sites such as [30]http://www.myiphonebestapps.com/content/bike-race-free-review][31][32][33][34] etc. are all not reliable. I admit there are many, but it's simply that they grab all the top games to "review". This is just one of the many cases where being popular does not equal notable at this time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing positions on this one per arguments from Hellknowz. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:01, 5 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monochroma

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

I don;t think the sources are sufficient for a game not yet released. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources are sufficient for an upcoming independent video game. (IGF entrant page, Gamasutra's news, Mod DB profile page, IGN's gameplay commentary video) And game's demo is available. (Demo on Indie DB page) Also I've added Template:Upcoming games for article. Quicklyman (talk) 16:28, 17 July 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) 01:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG, based on Gene93k's sources. Diego (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those links aren't from Gene93k. Furthermore, none of them are reliable sources. The IGF entrant page is dead, and woulnd't be independent anyways; Gamasutra is a press release; moddb is their own self-submitted profile; IGN gameplay commentary is marked as an advertisement; and being available for download isn't a notability criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Whpq said, none of the sources provided by Quicklyman show notability. SL93 (talk) 00:50, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 5 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. Sandstein 07:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J-ENT

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

Tagged as failing WP:GNG since January 2010, this article appears to be a purely promotional piece, is devoid of references, and is probably redundant to other articles. I can't find anything reliable in a Google search, although the hypenated name hinders things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:02, 24 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced as appears to be WP:OR. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious rubbish. Unsourced, original research, etc. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not exactly a term in common use, full of OR. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced original research. --DAJF (talk) 02:26, 7 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.

[1] ttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10734-004-0040-0

[2] ttp://1st.icodel.org/index.php/upou1/icodel-1/schedConf/overview

[1]

[2]