Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 August	30 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. Closed as Keep. Feel free to renominate in the future (non-admin closure) Bobherry talk 00:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Trash (magician)

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

Notable for inventing a green magic set? No lasting notability IMO Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does seem to get enough mentions in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestsbasra (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person has been involved in multiple notable events. EEAA - 2011 - Environmental Educator of the Year Award Winner, television ^[1], cover of Magic Magazine ^[2], cover of Weekly Reader ^[3], book author ^[4], musician ^[5], featured act at many state fairs - seems worthy to me. Hope I am doing this correctly - first time - not associated, just picked a topic to research and discuss! 24.178.114.102 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)bestofluck[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 23:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual has been covered by a number of reliable sources though the article could use some cleanup. Though the nominator claims there won't be "lasting notability", I'd remind all that notability is not temporarty (see WP:N#TEMP for further info). If he is or was ever notable, that's sufficient. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He might just be notable. I have 25 hits on HighBeam and I'll go through them tomorrow and see if any establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McConville

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. He shows up in Google, but not as much as the Irish dissident, and there was also a music professor of the same name. It has been tagged for blp sources and notability for 6 and a half years. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheQ Editor (Talk) 13:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete An article created by an apparent SPA and not improved in years can't be all that notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Is three books published by academic publishers enough for notability: rather marginal a to my mind.Peterkingiron (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:AUTHOR. His books include The King's Three Faces, which has been fairly widely reviewed. I added some of those reviews to the entry. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 20:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 23:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to delete Consensus to delete due to lack of notability or significant coverage. Chillum 16:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Himinbjorg (band)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BAND or WP:GNG. No French-language article. Has been tagged for notability for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noting that no rationale was given for above !vote. I have no comment on the notability question. Chubbles (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Tagging User:L1A1 FAL, so he/she is aware of above comment and can respond if he/she wishes. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 23:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Videos on YouTube have very few views.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 20:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forest School Camps

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

Article of unclear notability. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Area of unclear notability" is not a deletion reason, at all. Meaning what? Something about camps? It is not asserted that wp:Before has been performed, and the article suggests notability, so I see no reason to consider deletion. Article includes link to "FSC in the news", by the way. --do ncr am 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would this page be deleted? It's informative, accurate (so far as I'm aware), interesting, useful. My daughter is on camp and I wanted to know what she meant by 'tracker' in a letter she sent home - Wikipedia has the answer, and useful links and references too.Simon (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)— Simoncorder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. F.S.C. Is still a highly relevant organisation, that is active in running camps for children. This article is a valuable resource for the children who camp and their parents. It could be expanded upon but should not be deleted. 22:26 26th August 2014 (GMT)

This comment was from a non-registered I.P. editor. --do ncr am 01:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please keep the article on FSC (Forest School Camps ) . It may need amending perhaps with references to its status in the United Kingdom, its registration with the UK Charities Commission (no 306006) and as a company at the UK Companies House. The article is also of use to both members and non members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datdad (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC) — Datdad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. FSC is a long established and respected educational charity. What possible reason could there be for deleting any article about such an organisation? There have been recent updates and expansions, to the article, no doubt prompted by people in FSC suddenly being made aware of this AfD. I have made some such additions myself. (It is for others to say whether they are improvments.) In the past I recall reading articles on FSC in mainstream national newspapers, but I have no references. Some of these articles will pre-date the internet. However, it is important to note that FSC tends to discourage such articles, as they have often produced huge numbers of enquiries which, as a totally voluntary organisation, FSC is ill-equipped to deal with, so FSC does not publicise them. --User:Russell Cumbria— Russell Cumbria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I added a signature above, for the commenter Russell Cumbria. --do ncr am 01:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)— PatrickGuinness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 23:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a list of SPA's mass-voting on this AfD, so I've relisted it. I'm not sure consensus is really to keep. → Call me Hahc21 23:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just to note, I am not a single purpose account however. And as I commented first, I don't believe the deletion nomination itself is valid. --do ncr am 01:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG - Enough coverage of the topic in secundary sources. I have added some sources to the article. -- Taketa (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Guardian article and the listing by the government there. Busy Moose (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not an SPA, you can call me a 'toe dipper' - who thinks Wikipedia is a jewel of the internet... And to repeat myself - I can see no reason to delete this article, which is useful, accurate, and informative... not to mention with references as mentioned above. Simon (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:GNG SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd never heard of this organization before, but the articles in the Independent and Guardian meet the requirements of WP:SECONDARY - articles on the subject in reliable, independent national newspapers. By the way, I don't think it needs to be in the list of list of Ireland-related deletion discussions (which is how I came upon the AFD). Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Center

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

The building's only claim to fame is having a driver license office. It doesn't appear to be historical or otherwise exciting, and has generated no discussion in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOFEAT.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 23:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tora No Shi

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 23:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dictionaryfan, if you like, I can undelete this and move it to your private user space where you can work on it at your own pace. Please read up on our notability guidelines, especially WP:Identifying reliable sources, to get a better idea of what kinds of improvements need to be made. Hmm, I also see I accidentally stepped on Lankiveil's relist; we must have both been working on this at the same time. Sorry about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Neftzger

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Other than two short Kirkus reviews her books lack coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real 3rd party sources. All of the LibraryThing and GoodReads references should be deleted - those are both crowd-sourced, and are primarily lists of published works. The Kirkus Reviews are not significant: Kirkus reviews nearly everything published with very short (1 paragraph) reviews. The remainder are her writings. LaMona (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created this article when she got a lot of press for her jazz book for kids, which she did with her husband. I'm not sure how familiar the voters are with this industry. Kirkus Reviews is one of the primary sources of independent reviews, similar to Midwest Book Reviews. They reject the majority of the books submitted for review. This author has been internationally published, has been in the Amazon top 100 selling fiction books (all fiction, not just a subcategory), and has her work published in 3rd party publications. I have listed several of these third party publications, so I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. I am willing to update the article if you could supply me with preferred sources and more specific criteria. Dictionaryfan (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richardo Keens-Douglas

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

An actor who is most "known" for 2 small roles in 2 rather small films. Not quite notable. Now maybe if someday something happens to him and he becomes bigger, but not today. Wgolf (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On another note-looks like the creator of the article has sockpuppet accounts. Wgolf (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One line, no independent references. Could be speedy. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed — if all you can say is "topic is an actor, IMDB link, the end", then that's not a keepable Wikipedia article. I'm willing to revisit this, and would have no objection to recreation in the future, if the sourcing could actually be beefed up enough to prove that he actually passes WP:NACTOR at all, but in this state it's a definite delete (and could even have been speedied A7.) Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - roles to not appear to satisfy WP:ENT, and I'm not seeing coverage to indicate he might pass WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 20:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Seaplanes

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

WP:N the company is not notable in its own right as an article and there is insufficient detail or source material to warrant the creation of an article Tracland (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of Tears

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

Can't find anything to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This album review was the best coverage I could find; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 00:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article contains nothing other than a brief lead and a list of members and short discography. Also fails WP:BAND--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. People disagree about whether this is an incident with long-lasting impact. I guess we'll have to wait and see... Sandstein 16:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Charles Vacca

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

Absolutely failure of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT, particularly as it was an accident in an otherwise controlled environment. Non-notable persons involved. It perhaps might be a point in the discussion about gun control and children, but we should not have a topic about it. MASEM (t) 20:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go with userfy/draftify on this one, in the off chance it leads to some major legislative or culture change (which I'd doubt). Ansh666 21:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: seems like borderline on WP:NEVENT, a classic "wait and see" type of current-event article. Wouldn't mind a keep, either. Ansh666 01:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with keep on this one or at least merge into another article, the news on this topic has been reported outside of the USA (it has received news coverage on radio and television where I am from in England) and has provoked a number of discussions into gun legislation in the US. It may need a level of expansion and or rewording but I believe the basis for the article itself is sound and should be kept unless a suitable article to merge it into is found. Tracland (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Breadth (as in, international coverage) is not sufficient for notability. This is strictly an accident death of one person by a child even while supervised. The event might spark discussion but the only cover we can give is news, and that's what Wikinews is for. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that's what this article presently givens is newspaper-style reporting. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since coverage has continued for days with little sign of slowing down. --Jakob (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above & Mainly Jacob - Coverage has gone on for quite some time and as far as I'm aware something of this nature rarely happens. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously this is NEWS - the two previous entries by Jakob & Davey cite coverage as a reason to keep this. Coverage is about news, and not about knowledge. Until this has a notable effect the only thing noteworthy about it is the sensational tragedy it covers. Unless of course Wikipedia is going to start capturing everything sensational, in which case it should change it's name to Wikitabloidia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrellk (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite clearly per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT until this event has an impact on society and/or legislation, it is as stated, an industrial accident - or are we to start creating articles on every fatal fall from a scaffolding on a construction site? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, if there's significant coverage in reliable sources and it triggers debate about construction site safety or something? --Jakob (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a key indicator of notability is whether it triggers discussion or acts as a catalyst. For example, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meleanie_Hain was deleted because, despite the sourcing, there was nothing especially standout about this incident. Upjav (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we also should recognize, this was basically something being stupid and not following the rules (letting a child under the posted age to fire at an otherwise controlled environment). It's an accidental shooting incident. Unless for some reason the child is going to put on trial for murder, or a federal law gets put into place that bans gun use by all children under a certain age, this is has the same impact as a car accident that ends in the death of someone. There's not even a reasonable place to merge this. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're thinking it's too soon? Also, according to the page, there is no minimum age for firing at a range ("At the time, the nine-year-old girl receiving instruction was legal, because Arizona does not have a law prohibiting people under a certain age from firing a weapon"), so it could be the precedent for age restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upjav (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I've read said that the range had a recommended age limit, not the law. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straying from the point, but IIRC the recommended age was 8 (!), she was 9. Ansh666 18:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that notability is a more relevant criterion for inclusion that significance (and indeed, notability is noted in the policy pages to be different from significance or importance). This in clearly notable under the GNG. If the tree in my front yard makes national news (for whatever reason), then it's notable as far as I'm concerned. By the way, the article at hand isn't a WP:109PAPERS issue either, because the articles aren't all near-reprints of each other. --Jakob (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on enduring (read, longer-term) coverage, not just breadth of coverage, and that has not been demonstrated yet. It was all over the news when it happened, making it a blip, but as I'm judging by google news hits, the coverage is already dying out, which makes the enduring aspect questionable. That's why NEVENT says one should wait to make these types of articles where the enduring notability is not obvious, and why we have Wikinews where editors interested in current events can contribute and eventually move content into Wikipedia should the event turn notable. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's now another spurt of news coverage. How much do you want? Single stories that remain in the news this long are not common. --Jakob (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form. I don't know if this needs its own page, but it should be on Wikipedia somewhere, though I don't know of a good article to merge it with. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a merge if someone cites a good article to merge to. Upjav (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge - extended news coverage makes this notable. The discussion this has prompted a significant national discussion outside of the typical range (no pun intended) of gun right debates, as this was on a designated shooting range - tell me if I'm missing a similar incident. Upjav (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has no long-lasting impact, just another gun death in America. People are shot to death in the US very frequently, why we need to record the abject stupidity of putting an automatic 9mm Uzi in the hands of a nine-year-old for posterity I know not. I'm certain the girl in question will be thrilled to grow up knowing that the abject stupidity has been recorded for ever, and I'm sure that the existence of the article is nothing more than tabloidism. What purpose is it serving? It's a classic example of NOT NEWS. Should gun laws be modified as a result of this accident, then we can think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Notability is obvious. Everyking (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But it fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Notability's not the issue here. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - How? I presume you are saying it falls under this: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." But this article is structured to be about an event, not an individual, so this seems perfectly fine. Everyking (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm saying the event's not notable. Nothing has happened with this story outside of the human interest ("oh, that poor little girl!"). I've not seen any significant push for new gun control laws (as there was after the various shootings in 2013). There's no enduring coverage of the event from an encyclopedia manner. It's broadly covered, because the sensationalism of a young girl shooting an instructor with an Uzi (albeit under otherwise controlled conditions) is headline grabbing, but there's no legs to this story and in a few months looks like it will be forgotten. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Surely this is beyond "routine news coverage"? The news coverage of the event has been quite substantial, after all. Under what circumstances would you say the event is notable? Everyking (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If there was going to be some fundamental change in legislation about gun controls or regulation of gun ranges, or such, that might make this notable (though likely, if that was the case, we'd have an article about the legislation and not the event, akin to AMBER Alert). But when you read through the stories, there's basically all primary reporting from a half-dozen local sources (such as the timeline of events from the family's POV), there's very little evaluation of this event from sources. For all purposes, this story is : someone accidentally got shot by a child holding a gun with no malicious intent. That's not an encyclopedic topic. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you take a too-strict stance on what should be included. It seems that you're missing the difference between something sounding notable and something actually being notable. The way you described this event makes it seem like you think it doesn't sound notable. And that's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. Actual coverage, on the other hand, regardless of how trivial this event may seem, does exist, and that is what we should be concentrating on. --Jakob (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm arguing that this is not notable from a WP:NOT#NEWS standpoint. This is for all purposes a routine story, considering that people in the United States are accidentally hurt by guns every day (per [1], ~2 people a day were killed by accidental gun discharges in 2011). The only reason this story has any type of legs is that we have a young, Caucasian girl as the accidental shooter, which is unfortunately a prime candidate for media bias (something we need to recognize). --MASEM (t) 00:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The difference between this and tens of thousands of other gun accidents is that this one got covered in international news. For a week. If something receives significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, who are we to say that it is insignificant/not notable? We cover what reliable sources cover, however trivial a topic may sound at first glance. --Jakob (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Because of the media bias, that's why it got covered. We cannot be blind to the unfortunate fact that the press is not blind to race or gender. Speculation, but if the same events happened but everyone involved was male, or African-American, the papers would have passed over it beyond the local coverage. We have to be aware that the media has a systematic bias like this. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Systemic bias is a non-issue. The entire pool of available human knowledge is biased. For instance, a minute creek in a place like the US or England may have multiple studies on it, while a similar-sized creek deep in the Amazon Rainforest may have no coverage at all except for maps and possibly database listings. Would you support deleting small creeks in the US and England under this rationale? --Jakob (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Systematic bias is an issue we have to be aware of. The reason the creek in the US would get covered compared to one in the Amazon is that part of what WP is is a gazetteer, and so consensus has decided that every named geographic feature should have an article; so the one in the US will likely be named, while the one in the Amazon has not yet but as soon as it has been , it would be added. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't cover routine news, which this effectively is. There is a reason we have Wikinews for people that rather work on current events, even with the provision that should the events turn notable, we can bring that into WP. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You are defining what is notable based on what it is—whether you think it should be notable, basically—rather than the attention it has received. But notability can only be conferred by attention from human beings. If people treat this as notable, then it is notable. Ultimately the thing itself is irrelevant; all that really matters is whether the world cares about it. How do we define "routine"? If something receives a massive level of attention, even internationally, can it still be considered routine? I don't see how. On the NOTNEWS page, it gives examples of some mundane things that attract the attention of very few people. How is this comparable? Everyking (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        For events, we are specifically looking for enduring coverage, not volume of coverage (notability is not related to importance or fame or popularity). This story has no enduring coverage, and add in that people are shot and killed accidentally with guns every day and get zero coverage, shows that a combination of factors makes this very much a NOTNEWS failure and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that basically WP:Other stuff exists? (Or, other stuff doesn't exist, you know what I mean.) Ansh666 02:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much in this case, though I understand the point. If these other shootings were reported regularly at , say, a national level, but we opted not to include those, then trying to argue the same here could be pushing "other stuff doesn't exist". But we're talking that these other shootings get no attention at the national level, and since we try to reflect sources, we'd not even be able to have articles on these shootings. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, is it fair to call this "no consensus" and then renominate it later? Upjav (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I don't understand your argument. Legislation does not need to be passed to confer notability (of course), and this story has received a great deal more than routine coverage. It seems like your argument is "it's just a shooting, and shootings happen all the time". But surely not all shootings are alike? Can a shooting that appears only in local news, for example, be compared with this? Everyking (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many local shooters involve the death of the person shot accidentally, but they don't get any farther coverage than local. There is zero sign this is going to be anything that will fundamentally change society to some degree, and all signs point to the fact that in a few weeks, no one will remember this. That is a news report which should be documented at Wikinews, but not in an encyclopedia that is only to summarize enduring topics. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Fundamentally change society"? That's your standard for inclusion? Well, it's not a news report; it's an encyclopedia article about a notable topic, something that society has deemed important. Everyking (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a news report. It's all sourced to primary newspaper/news site sources with no secondary sources. That shows that's there's little expected impact of this event on the rest of the world. This goes to WIkinews, not en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. Earlier you said legislation needed to be passed, or that society needed to be "fundamentally changed" by the event. Now you just say more sources are needed. Can you please precisely identify what kind of source you would accept as demonstrating notability? Everyking (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without anyone notable involved in this event, it would have to be a source that talks about how this shooting would be influencing gun safety regulations at a larger scale (not just at that range, but at a national level), or adding legislation about that, or something else that aims to avoid a repeat of this incident outside of the local area. Again, consider the AMBER Alert; children are kidnapped and lost every day (and we don't have articles on every one of them), but her kidnapping specifically sparked the creation of the AMBER Alert system to prevent or stop future kidnappings. These types of actions are in response to the event, showing enduring notability of the event and would be secondary sources (eg articles saying that these plans were designed based on the event itself, as to make them secondary). But given that everything about this was an accident likely means you aren't going to see that, and thus deletion is appropriate. Now if it turns out a year later national legislation finally comes about, say something named "Vacca's Law" which involves limiting gun access to children or along those lines, then we might need to reconsider this article (but again, consider that we don't have an article on the actual kidnapping that led to AMBER Alert, but the crime is described in that article, we'd likely do the same here).

At the end of the day, this story is sensational news - it has all the right buttons that newspapers - which are in the business of selling news - love; a gun accident, a young girl, someone mortally shot. It's a eye-drawing headline. But that's all it is. There's no encyclopedic meat to this story at this time, and the story is already dropping out of newswire services, so there's no enduring coverage either. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't subscribe to your view that things need to have legislative consequences to be notable. If I were to produce a source in a week or a month that was still discussing this shooting, would that not satisfy your demand for "enduring coverage"? Surely if people were still talking about it in a month, that would be "enduring"? Everyking (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One source would not be sufficient. I can't say what the number of sources would need to be but it would have to be more than just primary sourcing after (at this point) 2 weeks since the incident. I'm sure there will be a story when Vacca is released from the hospital, but that's a natural conclusion of the story. And note I'm not saying there needs to be legislation but there needs to be more than just reporting of the events. I see nothing that suggests that people are going to change or try to change the situation to prevent this from happening again beyond changes at the specific range. (as noted, no law was broken, and while the range had a recommended age of 10, it wasn't strict). It was an accident, end of story. That's not encyclopdic-worthy. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one thing to add: how many people did this event directly affect? Obviously the girl and her family, Vacca and his family, and the management of the shooting range. A dozen or so people. Compared to the 7 billion people in the world. It is far far far too limited in scope to be an encyclopedic topic since we are not a collection of indiscriminate information. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Pretty sure most of these are secondary sources. The New York Times can't be doing firsthand reporting on what's happening in Arizona. It's encyclopedic because it was covered by multiple sources, not because it's an important event itself. See also WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:BELONG, both of which your argument is based on. Also, just so you know, Vacca was killed in the accident (in reference to your comment "I'm sure there will be a story when Vacca is released from the hospital"). --Jakob (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources require transformation of content (such as analysis, synthesis, criticism), not just re-iteration of content. Most non-op-ed pieces in major newspapers are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section about the potential legislative impact of this shooting to the article, but as this impact is still very slight I'm not sure if it is enough to meet the criteria set out by User:Masem. Masem, would you say this is enough of a legislative impact? Jinkinson talk to me 20:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the direction but I don't feel it still justifies the article. I do not know where it might be but there feels that there should be a larger topic about "guns and children in the United States" (maybe not to that specific level) that this would be a shorter section in.--MASEM (t) 20:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite apparent that it's being analyzed, though, and by politicians as well as the media. @Jinkinson: Nice work adding that section in. --Jakob (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origins: Discovery

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

PROD removed with the specious rationale "Removed deletion proposal as this is objectionable given the notable, topical and controversial subjects covered in the novel - reference to these issues is now added to the preview". The events may be notable, but there is no evidence that this novel is. TheLongTone (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Indeed, the references listed do not reference the work itself, merely the topic; which at best is disingenuous and at the worse, deliberately invoking false sources. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Just because a book deals with notable topics doesn't mean that the book itself is notable, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This looks to be your typical run-of-the-mill self-published book in that it released to no fanfare and has received no coverage in reliable sources to show how the book itself is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karrueche Tran

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

Speedy declined on the grounds that there's an assertion of notability, but I don't see it. Seems to be a wannabee model with a famours boyfriend who has recently attracted some essentially trivial media attention...WP:NOTNEWS TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no prejudice to re-creation with proper sourcing She has established some notability, but once her profession is noted in this article version, it deteriorates into WP:ATTACK territory very quickly by just stating who she dated, silly social media things she did and the 106 and Park incident which deserves two sentences at most. I can't support this version of the article without a major WP:RESCUE effort. Nate • (chatter) 20:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Gccwang (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Gccwang (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to appropriate recreation: Nate has said it all, and very neatly too. Mabalu (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf Consulting

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

Nonnotable company boasting a trivial service. No independent review. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a good candidate for CSD A7. Tina Gasturich (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first three "references" are the subject's own website. The last two do not even reference the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article fails to even meet A7, let alone the notability requirements outlined in WP:COMPANY. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- fails A7. Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E Records

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

Nonnotable single-person music "label". My son with computer has one, too. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence found to suggest that this label, not to mention its founder, meets WP:GNG at this time. Gongshow talk 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability, only citations are own website and music download sites like Beatport. Record label only has one artist, who is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Upjav (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chiara Milani

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

Non-notable journalist, president of the apparently equally non-notable Junior Chamber International. There appears to be a COI problem here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability at all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chiara Milani is not a notable journalist but she is notable as Junior Chamber International.User:Lucifero4

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted for a third time as believe a consensus will be reached this week,

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Might not be the biggest name, but she seems to have one at least as someone notable. Wgolf (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - JCI might be notable, but that doesn't mean that its annual president is. Otherwise she is vice director of news for a local TV station.--Rpclod (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to President of the Junior Chamber International, no other claim of notability nor substantive contents other than her having been an annual president of JCI. A redirect to the list of JCI presidents is sufficient. Cavarrone 03:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Innovation Foundation

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

advertising The Banner talk 10:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tone may need improvement to be less promotional and may need more reliable sources to demonstrate notability, but has been noted as created by the provincial government in Canadian Annual Review of Politics and Public Affairs 2002 & ongoing funding in industry media [2] and Canadian Press [3] Canuckle (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, could you clarify how you think this is advertising? It doesn't seem particularly promotional to me -- and it was declined for speedy deletion on those grounds. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To my opinion it is advertising because the article is not a neutral description of the organisation but a wish list of industry types it wants to support.
- After the declined speedy there were promises of improving the article. Except solving links to disambiguation pages nothing happened and the advertising is, in my opinion , still there. The Banner talk 19:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing how this is promotional. I do think this needs a major cleanup, but AfD is not cleanup. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A brief Google search shows that this agency enjoys sufficient notability. As the nominator notes, this article is a candidate for editing and increased references.--Rpclod (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmoLatina

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

essentially promotional article. no reliable sources for notability- just PR sites. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Certainly seems promotional. I think partly that is because of the image. What are Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites? Does this article meet those guidelines? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Wow a mail order bride website-I'm going to say delete on it being promotional, this seems like the type of thing that gets in your spam box. Wgolf (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I give a recommendation when I cannot view the references because they are blocked by my computer's filter? Similar to Wgolf, I lean to delete although the plethora of recommendations suggests that notability could exist.--Rpclod (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of scared to click on the link as it seems like a spam type site. Wgolf (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the three sources which initially appear to be reliable, two reproduce the same blog entry & the third is behind a paywall. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-you know looking at the picture of that site I just feel like I need to put some sort of late night joke lol. Like hey look at all the fake pictures of women there that look so beautiful. And in all honesty-not sure anyone is actually going to be looking up info about a site like this on Wikipedia. If it is even a place someone would want to go to. Wgolf (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avian Kingdom

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

There are no sources, it doesn't meet WP:GNG and it is partially promotional. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:30, 21 August 2014 (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) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. I am unable to find any reliable, third-party published sources covering this franchise. The books won several minor literary awards, however a) minor awards don't count towards notability, and b) these were lesser categories that sources covering the awards themselves didn't even mention. It's like winning Best Grip at an independent horror film festival: I'm sure it's an honor, but it doesn't get you a page on Wikipedia. Not to disparage grips or Latino book designers, it's a job, just typically not a notable one. Woodroar (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first reference is a non-authoritative local blog that reads like a press release and does not actually mention the subject. Second reference results in: "The requested URL /lbff/ilba.php was not found on this server." The third and fourth references do not mention the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Cesar Badillo

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article long flagged for notability; the single 3rd party source, a 2009 piece in El Universo, provides basic verification, but nothing to indicate more than a man going about his work. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up nothing better. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG.131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 21:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

100 Pakistanis - The Famous & Influential

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

No evidence of notability, less than 10 GHits for its publisher "Universal Oxford Publication", most of which seem to be publicising Aamir Liaquat Hussain where, surprise, it's being used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, dubious notability at best. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 21:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe.in

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

Article is written almost entirely as an advertisement (including several misrepresentations, e.g. believe.in is no longer no-fee for charities), company is not notable enough to warrant its own page DaftFeline (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cyberforce. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impact (Image Comics)

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyberforce. The character is minor but at least link to their team. Frmorrison (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thiss one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - A redirect would be the appropriate move here.--Canyouhearmenow 11:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with the above posters that this is not suitable for a stand-alone article. But I don't agree that a redirect is appropriate because the title is not a plausible search term. Reyk _YO! 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Wikicology (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 NHL transactions

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

This is not encyclopedic. Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure why you would cite WP:NOTSTATSBOOK when the only numbers appearing in the list are dates. It's valuable non-trivial information that takes a bit too much space to fit into the article 2014–15 NHL season so it's a natural spin-off. Note that we do the same for the NBA (Category:NBA transactions) and for football leagues (Category:Association football transfers). Pichpich (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it should be kept for the reasons already given by Pichpich GLG GLG (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:5. Wikipedia combines many features of various publication types, including almanacs. That is the category I would place these lists under. Given the clearly defined inclusion criteria and obvious relationship to their parent articles, I don't buy the WP:NOTSTATSBOOK argument. Reso lute 02:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Resolute. Deadman137 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 00:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 NHL suspensions and fines

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

This is just listcruft. Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are six of these lists in Category:National Hockey League suspensions and fines. Is there a reason you singled this one out that distinguishes it from the others? postdlf (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there were other problematic pages. In light of that I am also nominating the following related pages:

Tchaliburton (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Whichever way this turns out, it's better to discuss them as a group if the same rationale applies to them all equally. postdlf (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am still trying to get my head around this particular set of lists, but my initial reaction is they are WP:TRIVIA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of ice hockey-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep carefully referenced lists which provide valuable historical information on the NHL's discipline system (all the more important for the last few years given the drastic changes relating to hits to the head). WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:TRIVIA have been cited above as grounds for deletion but I don't see how they apply here. First, they're not really lists of statistics, they're lists of incidents primarily sorted by date and are similar to Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 which WP:NOTSTATSBOOK cites as an example of acceptable lists. As for WP:TRIVIA, the guideline describes it as lists of isolated information which clearly doesn't apply in the present case. Pichpich (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the pages include information that is substantive and relevant to the NHL's disclipline system. I don't think it's accurate to describe them as mere "lists" or "trivia" and they're not really stats, either. GLG GLG (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by Pichpich, this is a carefully prepared list with well-defined criteria. Just because an article happens to be a list, doesn't make it "listcruft" (otherwise, we wouldn't have anything populating WP:FL). Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 02:45, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I ride the fence on this one somewhat. Everything I said in my keep rationale for the transactions AFD would apply here too. But in most cases, I think most suspensions and all fines are just a little more meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I find I am inclined to waste digital ink rather than cast a !vote. Reso lute 02:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A possible compromise is to keep the suspensions but forget about the fines which are indeed much less significant. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TRIVIA. These list articles remind me of those (now deleted) succession boxes named Edmonton Oilers top scorer. Shall we next have articles listing NHL players skate sizes per season? GoodDay (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In agreement with Pichpich on his original argument. –B2Project^(Talk) 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-rated Pakistani television series

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

Purely subjective list copied from [www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4060522] (noted by CorenSearchBot here and warning erased from article. Sources provided are not from reliable sources and don't support the list. A google search didn't turn up anything useful. Ravensfire (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - List cruft that belongs elsewhere (IE some Wikia). –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. MER-C 10:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Copyright in lists and nominator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Tokyogirl79 per CSD G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number-one singles on the World Chart

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

Dubious and unreliable Media Traffic chart, also listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Widr (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Copyvio from Media Traffic's About Us page. Tagged for G12. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federação Internacional de Luta Livre

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion - relies entriely on the primary website. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Wikicology (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsy and Mugsy

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

Fails notability for films. Mr. Guye (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Bugs Bunny short passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG & WP:FILM. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FILM and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. While the Inheritance series itself is notable, I can't see where this specific part of the series has gained enough coverage to where it'd be notable outside of the series or where it'd merit being a list. As this is already covered in a fan wikia for the series, there's nothing to be lost by deleting this entry. Even if we ran this for the full week, the end result would still be the same, so I'm closing this early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf clans in Inheritance Cycle

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

Absolute fancruft. Mr. Guye (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yup, fancruft. Badly sourced, unnecessarily detailed, and written in an in-universe style. Reyk _YO! 12:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft is the word, no reason to suppose this is a notable topic.TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Simply fancruft!, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a-11, (incorrect) theory invented by student author. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy can be destroyed

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

Pseudoscientific WP:OR with no sources to speak of. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwiki to Conservapedia~~ Delete: original research, clearly wrong in the eyes of the scientific community, failed to find reliable sources to support the article. BethNaught (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems like it would meet CSD A11. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. So tagged. Reyk _YO! 11:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xbattle

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

This is a case of "I like it", but it's clearly non-notable. I've already copied the text to Wikia at http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Xbattle. Slashme (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2014 (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) 03:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't find any evidence of notability. Ansh666 03:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not certain that it's "clearly" non-notable as I suspect any sources would be in magazines, but I can't find any evidence of available coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the fact that it was made in 1991 makes it harder to reference
Delete: Not much in the way of reliable sources, and mentions of it in general are far fewer than would be necessary to show any sort of notability. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 06:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 16:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Chronis

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although a stub, there are third-party articles about her art. These tend to be small avant-guard publications, but she is after all an avant-guard artist. The most solid reference that the one in Chicago Reader. It would be great if this article could be expanded, but there really isn't much more to say about her, as far as I can see. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With my obvious bias as the main author declared. She is mentioned in fringe arts media, which I have supplied , enough to be considered notable. Lumos3 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sources cited are adequate to demonstrate notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:N + WP:GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn oer all above. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fonte Coffee

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

Apart from the Boston Herald review and Chicago Tribune excerpt (which aren't great), page is supported by regional coverage. WP:GNG. Page is also fairly promotional, indicated by coi tag. Jppcap (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; While it is a regional coffee maker, it has notable reviews. It needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Frmorrison (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this local coffee maker has a few reviews, so do thousands of other brands that, like it, don't qualify for Wikipedia. Worse, the creator hid the fact that these were reviews and not real articles. WP:TooSoon imho172.56.22.40 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 08:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in Google news. Page is supported by PR.Hudson bait (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be more important than any regular coffee roaster. Boston and Chicago paper mentions above. Also a business periodicals search yields a Wine Spectator (national/international magazine) one page article with photo about it. I don't have access to the full text, but info/abstract are: Author: Mark Pendergrast. Wine Spectator. 8/31/2010, Vol. 35 Issue 6, p29-29. 1p. 1 Color Photograph. Abstract: "The article focuses on coffee roaster Fonté which supply coffee beans to high-end hotels in the U.S. It notes that master roaster Steve Smith has introduced several coffee blends such as the Arabian Mocha Java, the Yemeni Blackberry Raisin, and the Guatemala Cup of Excellence. It adds that entrepreneur Paul Odom has founded Fonté when he purchased the equipments of the failing Beans Company Coffee." Also PR Newswire in 2005 (not independent material) reports numerous client hotels and restaurants across the nation, in "Fonte Coffee Roaster Announces Record Growth, Inks Mammoth Deals With Luxury Hotels and Hip, New Restaurants" PR Newswire [New York] 06 Apr 2005: p1. Notable. --do ncr am 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination seems to be in favor of keeping the article? Although it suggests two sources "aren't great", it notes a Boston Herald review and a Chicago Tribune article, and that the article also "is supported by regional coverage". There is a non-sentence "WP:GNG" meaning the General Notability Guideline is met? So, per the nomination the article should be kept? I am not meaning to be facetious...I see that it is a nom to delete... but honestly this like some other AFD noms I have seen seems to be more in support of keeping. In other AFDs i have seen votes like "Keep, per nom" and that would be justified here. --do ncr am 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jeffrey_M._Schwartz#Brain_lock. Natg 19 (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Lock

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

Neologism coined by one person and not notable elsewhere. Fails general notability guideline, no independent sources referring to this concept. Gccwang (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator in favor of redirect, based on discussion and new sources found by Tokyogirl79. Gccwang (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion of a book that used this term in its title. Only reference is the book itself. Clever attempt to get single book into WP. LaMona (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Certainly no notability as a neologism. The book by the same title has attracted some amount of notice, but for a topic that falls into WP:MEDRS I'd like to see more than reviews in blogs. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm leaning towards a merge/redirect in this instance. I'm finding some coverage for his overall ideas, but not a lot of coverage for the specific term per se. There is some coverage like this article, but not enough to where I think that this would merit anything other than a subsection in the author's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeffrey_M._Schwartz#Brain_lock. I actually did manage to find quite a bit of coverage for the term as a whole. It's sort of used to refer to Schwartz's concept of OCD as well as the treatment plan as a whole, so it's not entirely a neologism. In any case, I found some fairly extensive mention of the term in various books and/or extensively used as a reference so it is worth a mention somewhere. ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) I'd personally recommend a redirect to the author's page over keeping the article separate, as there's not a huge-huge amount of coverage. It could and should be more fleshed out by someone more familiar with the concept as a whole, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment A redirect would be reasonable as this is primarily Schwartz's concept. Gccwang (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeffrey_M._Schwartz#Brain_lock per Tokyogirl79's source finds. The term is verifiable but I haven't found any further RS to demonstrate notability independent of the author. It is a reasonable search term, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect makes sense to me too, I guess. --Gccwang (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Hayford

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

It simply fails WP:MUSICBIO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional, nn, no proper sources. I would have speedied this if it hadn't been afded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find coverage for this person to demonstrate that he might meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 17:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any evidence of any WP:NOTABILITY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Shouldn't this have been speedy deleted as a copyvio of pathayford.com? George8211 / T 16:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LU:KUS

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

Questionable notability.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. Ansh666 17:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The article meets the standards of a proper page. Mikepellerin (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding sources that show it's notable. Most of the results are sites or accounts that appear to be owned by the group, and most everything else looks like just a passing mention. mol uɐɯ 20:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just WP:TOOSOON, they are still rookies so maybe later on, but as of now it cannot stand Asdklf; (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find nothing that is substantial enough to prove notability. I agree with Asdklf; that this is more than likely WP:TOOSOON.--Canyouhearmenow 11:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Sharpe

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

Article seems extremely promotional. I attempted to help the creator by formatting the page when it was only a few sentences long and now she's gone in and added a lot of promotional sounding content. I told her it was a conflict of interest since she's his P.A but she claims someone from "Marketswiki" wrote it for her. I'd like to get other users opinions on whether it should be kept or deleted. MaxineBangs (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to ask which parts are considered promotional, so that they can be altered if voted by others. Yes I am the gentleman's PA. I made this clear from the beginning.

Secondly, I did not request for any of the information to be created. The content that is on the current page was created by an editor from Marketswiki which is an online encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia. I transferred the information, thinking it would also be accepted as all references are provided and I did not create it. I believe the page should not be deleted because the references in relation to Wayne Sharpe, display the credibility of him as a person and the content on this page. If someone else additionally believes the content is promotional, based on his credibility as a person the page should remain and just be altered to what they believe is non promotional. Martina_CTX (talk)

So you're saying you copy and pasted it from another website? Please see WP:G12. All content on Wikipedia must be original. MaxineBangs (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't a copyright violation due to copying from Marketswiki, the references do not meet notability standards. Marketswiki is a pay to play promotional wiki run by a single person, and I could not find any rights statement regarding rights held on its content (thus copyright is assumed). It should not be considered a reliable source as a reference, and obviously should not be copied from. LaMona (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Marketswiki seems to be under the GFDL, so the copyright thing might not be a huge drama, although attribution would probably be required. With that said, I'm not sure that Sharpe meets the WP:GNG. Apparently quite successful, and probably a nice person, but there doesn't seem to be the independent secondary coverage we'd want to demonstrate that he was notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as an exclusively and unambiguously promotional article. I'm inclined to think that the subject of the article is not notable: the sources in the article just don't stack up against the GNG. But I could be persuaded on that point if a neutral article were to be created in place of this one. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article is unambiguously promotional. AlanS^talk 23:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is Promotional in addition to copyright concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luminary (band)

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

I couldn't find enough to demonstrate that they meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding coverage to show that this duo satisfies WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 18:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable band fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Diagnostic Services

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

The are no secondary sources present in the article. A Google search of the product didn't yield anything positive in terms of significant coverage. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks. An ISO protocol is not a product. Although they include dollar signs, the SIDs in the table are not prices: they include letters. Perhaps this is the source of the nominator's confusion. This protocol is also referred to as "ISO 14229-1" and as "UDS". It was also the sole part of ISO 14229, with which it was and perhaps still is synonymous: [9]. As to its importance, it may be used on all cars made by Ford: [10]. James500 (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kiran Shete

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

Created by apparent COI editor, promotional username, no real claim of notability or independent sourcing. Has already been PRODded, and was contested by author. I have reported the author to UAA for a promotional username (the name of the clinic). Google search shows no real indication of notability, just a couple of articles where he was quoted in some context. Revent^talk 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this Shete. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. CutestPenguin ^discuss
Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability standard as described. Silverfish8088 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:BIO whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Remember, WP:CSD is a better way of dealing with these types of pages. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Macarooon

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

Nonsense BollyJeff | talk 03:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Like to Play Games

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

~~Non notable film. Wgolf (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn-Wgolf (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well this is a DTV film, looking around there is some info about it, but with no links to the people involved or anything, not sure how notable this is. Wgolf (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some digging finds the article is not an orphan and has some notables acting within it. An expanded search would include

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

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

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

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

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

and the film had international release under different titles. ;Non-English:

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

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

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

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

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

Finland 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finland 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Time now to look further. I'll be back.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well...it defiantly does seem to have a audience, even if a small one it does appear to be notable somehow. So I guess I should withdraw and let this be userfied. (When looking this up I couldn't find anything notable, though last night I did look it up on the IMDB and noticed it had over 700 votes much to my surprise which tells me that it should stay, if we can have titles with no votes even. Plus it does appear it did come out. I think the thing was that it just had a few lines and nothing else and it just seemed questionable.) (Well no harm in what I did do though as at least someone did get info, better be safe then sorry!)Wgolf (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not sure that the "You can't prod an article that has been previously deleted at AFD" rationale is in line with the spirit or the intention of that guideline, but the consensus here to delete anyway is still pretty clear. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Club Xanadu

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

Deleted at AfD in 2005 - not notable. My prod was removed with the message that I could not prod it as it has been at AfD before (although then it was a delete). Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:PRODNOM does not differ betweeen a keep or delete AfD, it just says, "has not been and is not being discussed at AfD," (my emphasis). Since this article was already discussed at AfD as evidenced by the link above, I removed the PROD. Going from an AfD to PROD is like a step backwards. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references. The only claim to notability is to try to tie to Bruce Springsteen, but notability cannot be inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable references, and I can't seem to find much on the internet. The notability mentioned here is inherited, as Rpclod says, which does not suffice as notability. Upjav (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its presence on the internet creates tumbleweeds. Delete away.--Canyouhearmenow 11:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Deor (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Grocers Cooperative

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I de-PRODded this because of the extensive Google books results. I wanted this to get a full consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference is an insignificant 2008 reference in a trade rag.--Rpclod (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 7th largest cooperative in the United States with over $2 billion in annual consolidated sales.[11] Seems to be a significant and notable concern.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ to Keep per conversation below. - Although Milowent makes a good point of its communal and economic stature, one would still have to conceded that it has very little coverage to substantiate the claim other than this one article. I would still have to go with the deletion simply because sources are very limited at best.--Canyouhearmenow 11:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that is the only source one could find, based on my past experience with similar AfDs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent I did find other articles, however, they are not what I would call proper third party sources. These are sign in and blog pages that could be edited by the source itself. The other articles I found are WP:Mirror articles that say pretty much what has already been included here on Wikipedia, or they ape the same thing as the article you quoted. That is where my hesitations lays.--Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added four cites rather quickly, two to Chicago Tribune article and one to the Chicago Sun-Times, the two primary papers in the area. And one to a 1932 article in the National Grocers Bulletin. It would be shocking if a company that does over $2 billion in annual sales, and started 95 years ago, was not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone a digital plus member at the Chicago Tribune site? I can see via pqarchiver that they have many articles on this entity from prior to 1988 (e.g., [12]), but I'm not a subscriber.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent I did not find those articles on my search, Good Job! For tha reason I agree that this is a notable subject and am hereby changing my vote to Keep.Canyouhearmenow 13:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Sorry if I was being cranky, btw. I'm getting old-editor-itis at AfD sometimes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After all the time I have edited on here I feel the same way. I simply go into search mode and sometimes I become way to straight forward focused and don't look at the vehicles coming at me from the sides. I appreciate the work you did to bring out the sources and to change the direction on this AfD. Let me know if I can ever help you.Canyouhearmenow 16:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now willing to concur with Milowent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EUROMICRO

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

DOes not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been nominated for deletion twice before (speedy and prod) by two different editors, but considered not to meet that criteria/possibly be notable. It has been tagged for notability for over six years without resolution. Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. A publication of Euromicro, the Journal of Systems Architecture, has an ISI impact factor and therefore satisfies criteria 1 of NJournals. I also found this. James500 (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction Robot

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

Article about a computer-science neologism. I believe this kind of software is more usually called an 'Agent'. None of the sources provided are valid or reliable for topics in CS or AI. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—promotional + WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Promo bs that belongs elsewhere .–Davey2010 • (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and original research. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Unambiguous {{nn-band}} case. Never should have been brought here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three for a Girl

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

A band with only 1 album that has no page either. Wgolf (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Brand new, unsigned. I'd say it's too soon for them to be on wikipedia. No notability yet. Cpuser20 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-The article has been around since 2009 so not quite a brand new band-but you are right about notability. Wgolf (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performing for "nearly a year", but no references.--Rpclod (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/06/11/steve-trash-illusionist-gone-green

[2] ttp://www.mylovelyassistant.com/products/view/16680

[3] ttp://www.stevetrash.com/images/bio4.jpg

[4] ttp://amzn.com/B007U0VTBW

[5] ttp://amzn.com/B00FK53ZQQ

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]