Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 February	4 February >

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. Primarily per DGG - this article needs to be carefully watched to prevent SPAM from returning (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrant Academy

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

Advertisement, no categories, no references, using facebook twitter as external links, promotional unencyclopedic advertisement Solomon7968 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a typical Indian "crammer", preparing people for entry examinations - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cram spam, article has no value and is purely promotional. --Bob Re-born (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after clean up is the renowned cram-school of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladekar (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Ladekar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete. There are a few reliable sources given, but I don't think they distinguish this school from all the millions (that's not hyperbole) of such institutes of its kind in India. The coverage certainly isn't significant. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are making the ludicrous claim that there is more than one such crammer per thousand population then that claim most certainly is hyperbole. Please try to keep your statements within the realm of credibility. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indian cramming schools are a major part of the education scene there. (as in a fe wother countries). This particular one is well documented by the Times of India articles. There is a certain degree of suspicion for all Indian newspapers that they base their stories on press releases, but the first cited article very clearly is not a press release. That the leading English-language newspaper in the country published several extensive articles on them is notability. The articles clearly do establish the status. I wonder if the doubters can find similar coverage for others--in which case we should probably write articles about it. I'm sure they won;t find it for "millions". 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, and only after cleanup. I think the references in the article show that it just barely passes notability requirements. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete , Not a notable institute. It is a coaching center and the page is created for publicity/ marketing purpose. There are lot of coaching institute in almost each and every street. I strongly recommend to delete this page. Jussychoulex (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The coaching is one of the most prestigious in India. and there are many reliable sources given. Shivamsetu (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single reliable reference which shows the notability of the Vibrant Academy. All references just tell about the Kota city, which has become the hub of thousand of coaching centers. Vibrant Academy is one on them. It is a purely a promotional page. There are many coaching institutes like this in almost all the streets of India.Jussychoulex (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is 100% promotional page of a coaching center (its is not a academic institute, which provides degrees). There are many coaching centers in almost all the streets of India, like this. This page was made by a student of this coaching center 'Shivam Setu' see http://in.linkedin.com/in/shivamsetu. Shivam Setu also made his promotional page on Wikipedia, which was SPEEDY DELETE, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivam_Setu&action=edit&redlink=1. I am shocked to see that this page is still surviving here on Wikipedia. Jussychoulex (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is well deserved article. There is coverage in reliable secondary sources, e.g.- The Times of India, The Telegraph (Calcutta), Forbes India etc. Misscric indi (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)— Misscric indi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:Misscric indi has done little or no edits except this AFD. Solomon7968 06:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Research Group on Animal Law

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

Can't find any reliable secondary sources referring to this organization or its impact in the field. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Wieno (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor research unit belonging to a part of a University without any kind of notability I could find. I did google it in several languages and still ended up with very few pages who mostly writes thesame thing.Stepojevac (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. While UQAM is a large university, not all of its constituencies are also notable automatically. In fact, as of right now, there's not even a mention at the main article. I'd lean to redirect with a single sentence describing the group. I will even be so bold as to add a line. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 20 February 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 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martine Lachance

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. I can't find any secondary sources remarking on her contribution to the field. All the sources on the page are by the subject or the institute she runs (except for the university's bio of her). Wieno (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims of notability seem to be the unsourced assertion that she's one of the few experts on animal rights in Canada (dubious) and that she organized a conference (routine academic work) – ipso facto not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garmsir incident

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

fails WP:EVENT. also as per WP:LASTING, and WP:PERSISTENCE. all the sources in article from January 2010. since last AfD no new coverage comes to light that would change this. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very notable event covered VERY substantially in reliable independent sources. of lasting significance. One of the key events in the conflict and discussed as such in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where is the lasting significance? the article contains no new sources since Janurary 2010. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in lots of books and article on the war and soldiers' experiences in the war. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please list them here rather than saying WP:MUSTBESOURCES. I'd be interested in seeing them thanks. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That essay was created with material that was removed from WP:ATA. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

regardless, the onus on keep !voters is to demonstrate existence of sources, in this case Candleabracadabra has claimed existence of lots of sources. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Still waiting for these lots of sources. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the numerous sources cited in the article a Google Books search for Garmsir turns up lots of substantial covreage. I have no objection to merging this incident into the Garmsir article as the area seems to have been a hotbed of conflict during the war. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where are the sources after January 2010 to meet WP:LASTING. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do a Google News search for the past four years? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you claim lots of ongoing coverage exists , so obviously you've seen these articles. I'm still waiting for these sources. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of lasting significance provided in the article or the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 22 February 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. feel free to WP:USERFY slakr^\ talk / 07:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paani

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

Fails WP:NFF. It's been rumored, and pushed back and debated and "coming soon" and all ready to start since 2003. It's now 2014 and all we have from the distributor company itself is that it will be shot and go to floor in mid-2014.[1]. The article was formerly converted to a redirect by @Vivvt: 1 May 2013 per WP:NFF (note: only admins can actually see the actual log entry for this now-deleted action). That redirect was then deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 24#Paani as better to have as a redlink for when an article can be written. I propose that it is a poster-child for why WP:NFF requires actual filming to have begun, rather than rumor and self-promotional chatter from those involved in the supposed project. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per rationale provided by OP. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Incubate - Sadly, the article is extremely well sourced but then again verifiability does not guarantee inclusion as it fails WP:NFF. The film though will get notable in the future so I suggest that an User-space copy should be kept. Soham 16:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would like to stress that a user space copy be kept so that it can be restored later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitreloaded (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
incubate should the "mid-2014" prophecy be more accurate than previous oracle proclamations, it can be re-hatched.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for pretty well work done so far. It would then be easier to use it once filming starts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per Dharmadhyaksha.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate : I have worked a lot for writing the pre-production of the film with other sections. Searched hard for cached references too. Apart from that the filming is to commence from Summer 2014. Till then the Wikipedia page of the same may be kept under a re-direct. Arjann (talk) 17:08, 8 February 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.

@Slakr:. please incubate this article. Delete is not the best closure. Tito☸Dutta 08:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gruber (entrepreneur)

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

The "awards" are trivial; the references are Press releases. I prodded an earlier version back in August & it was deleted, but this is no better. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Too soon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG: Please put on your admin hat check the version that was deleted through PROD in August 2013 is different than the existing one and if so, WP:REFUND it temporarily so it can be examined for a possible merge/histmerge. If it's substantially identical or clearly doesn't contain any new information, no need for a refund, but I would appreciate you stating "it was the same" or "it was clearly inferior" or some such. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Please address this before it is too late. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). I agree with the nominator that the awards are trivial (fails WP:ANYBIO #1). Also the references seem to be mostly press releases, so it also fails WP:BASIC. - tucoxn\^talk 03:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete looking at the article he is really only known for one thing, that is starting s notable company. That in itself does not justify his own article. LibStar (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier history contains a several different versions.I have undeleted them all into the page history, Depending on what is done with this page, they can either stay or they will get re-deleted DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Webstream Awards

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

fails WP:GNG. all the sources are not third party. nothing in major Australian news site, news.com.au , created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 17 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Gremillion

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus. Page was created by person, COI. Person is not treated by secondary sources, and no evidence exists that person is anything other than a run-of-the-mill professor. Person's h-index is weak, single digit. Page reads like a resume and contributes nothing to Wikipedia. Page gets less than 3 page views a day. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I find a GS h-index of around 14. A little bit below the border line. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I agree that 14 is conventionally in the "borderline" region, but it's worth noting that anthropology is a low-citation field. WoS shows her 26 papers have been cited collectively >250 times by other archival papers and, importantly, almost all of her papers are first-author or single-author publications. These figures suggest she's a noted authority in her field. Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you have a secondary source that says that? Because otherwise, that's just opinion. Also, only one article, Chenopodium, links to her article. Not much of a leading expert. Abductive (reasoning) 06:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link I furnished above is to an empirical study published in the Journal of Sociology showing citation rates are much lower than, for example, biology. Because we don't "self cite" here, there's no need that Wikipedia recognizes her as an expert. The salient point is that the academic world recognizes her as such and this is demonstrated by >250 citations by other journal articles to her work. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

- - Several other articles cite her work and should be linked to her article if it is kept. They include Watson Brake, Oxidizable carbon ratio dating, Paleoethnobotany, Archaic period in North America, Native Americans in the United States, History of Native Americans in the United States, Food history, Poverty Point culture, and Handbook of North American Indians. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's still a bit of a borderline case, but there have been two positive developments since the inconclusive 2009 AfD: she was promoted to full professor (at Ohio State, a major research university) and she published a book "Ancestral Appetites: Food in Prehistory" that I think was aimed more at the general public than at academia and that has attracted some media attention [2] [3] [4]. That's enough to tip the balance for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- full prof at a tier I research institution definitely passes the Average Prof. Test for me. GS cites and h-indexes are not used often for anthro. promotions and those citing them should be able to show what an average notable h-index in anthropology is before using them as evidence. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything to distinguish he as being notable per guidelines. Where is the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that the subject of the article is a woman, so "he" is not the appropriate pronoun. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look like a typo for "her" to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 15 February 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. Consensus to keep following twice relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Adkerson

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

I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing; the more detailed mentions are promotional in nature. It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what he is notable for. A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. Ireneshih (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irene - I see where you are coming from but he is an influential character in the mining industry and regularly features as a subject of mining related articles. A few examples -

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/02/01/freeport-facing-uphill-struggle-lobby-government.html http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/indonesia/2014/02/02/399681/Freeport-struggles.htm

A single purpose account is also quite a strong term to use for my profile, my aim is to help the encyclopedia provide bios on important businessmen and women around the world. When I find a topic that interests me more, I will act upon that. I notice the sum total of your contributions to this website is to delete material from it. While I understand that it is necessary to prune the bush, so to speak, don't you feel you should contribute more to the encyclopedia rather than just deleting things all the time? Thanks Aardvark112 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find enough ghits to establish notability. Cited sources are not independent of the subject. The Bloomberg Businessweek mention is more like a directory listing.Iniciativass (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg Businessweek has user-submitted executive summaries. It's basically a resume service for the corporate world. Having a Businessweek profile is not proof of any notability at all.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Yes, I'd say he was notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of major company, and of major professional society, and major awards. I am consistently skeptical about sub-national level society leadership positions, and sub-national level awards, but national level awards have always been considered notable here in everything. WP does cover the business world, when we can get decent NPOV articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 20 February 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) • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impedance control

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Only source for the article is the single paper which appears to have invented the theory/approach. My search of the web turned up no other instances of the concept except in that original paper, and a single novel paper does not warrant a Wikipedia article absent some broader impact on the field or society. Wieno (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator - it looks like it may have a bigger impact than I thought and it seems like the article creator is willing to improve it. Wieno (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a PhD student in robotics and I also study controls. Impedance control is a vital method for dynamic manipulation and has established control theory. That said, I have been frustrated with the lack of open source documentation on it so I made this article as a start in the right direction. I'd expand it except I'm not (yet) an expert in this area. There are plenty of advanced articles on Google Scholar discussing it: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=impedance+control&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.13.119 (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a good article to cite: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1087854&tag=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.13.119 (talk) 08:22, 3 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hamblin

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST. All the references on the page appear to be by, rather than about, the subject. The only source I could find about the subject is this article[5], which isn't enough for notability. Wieno (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is in fact substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, it would be bes to start fresh. This article is an ad piece without reliable independent sourcing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:01, 11 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FPMT Basic Program

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

Program itself does not appear to be independently notable per WP:GNG: There is only one link to an independent source which only appears to mention the program in passing. Wieno (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition.Iniciativass (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:15, 20 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FPMT Masters Program

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

Program itself does not appear to be independently notable per WP:GNG: There is only one link to an independent source which only appears to mention the program in passing. Wieno (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition.Iniciativass (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:14, 20 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Boyd

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

Article about an activist in the Scotland Independence movement. Speedy deletion was declined by another editor, though I can't see the significant coverage in reliable sources myself. She gets mentioned in a couple of news sources, while the redflag.org article is co-authored by her, not about her. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looking at the available third-party sources, either cited in the article or found through my own search of newspaper articles, I'm only seeing brief passing mentions, not enough to build a biography. (There are articles about her in the Daily Mail, attempting to discredit her, but my understanding is that the Mail is not viewed as a reliable source, per consensus at WP:RSN.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! If I'd known there was a national press campaign against her, I may not have raised the AfD. The DM is a trashy rag but its still read by several million people. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She gets mentioned in passing in articles about Scottish independence, but there is no significant coverage. I would prefer that we avoid sourcing The Daily Mail. It's not a reliable source by any strict definition of the term, and we don't want to create a biography out of negative propaganda from a tabloid. It's probably too soon for an article on her, though we may not have to wait long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is an activists. She has not done anything notable. We should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 20 February 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. Most of the "Keep" !votes assert that he "will be notable when he wins" or "will be notable when the criteria are changed". While WP:IAR is a thing, so is WP:CRYSTAL. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Jacoby

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

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

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

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

This article was previously deleted at AFD because he was not notable as an MMA fighter. Since then he's done nothing to add his notability in MMA and has started kickboxing. However, he doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:KICK), either. The coverage is routine fight promoting and results coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. I don't think Glory for kcikboxing is considered top tier although it would be nice if that was clearer as is the case with MMA fighters.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Glory is definitely world's top kickboxing promotion, without any competition, Dustin is last minute replacement, kickboxind deboutant, underdog and winner of for Road to Glory event, there are lots of aricles about it. 1-3 in Glory right now, but participates in a Glory middleweight tournament, and will fight there for a while.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe we need a referendum to change the kickboxing notability. Right now leading promotions are Glory and SuperKombat, but Glory is something special and supreme like the former K-1. I would also still consider K-1 notable and I would add Final Fight Championship of Croatia and Legend Fighting Show of Russia. The rest are probably not notable. My opinion is I hope objective and helpful. Dustin Jacoby is fighting in the largest promotion in the world. In addition, he won over Brian Collette in the promotion, ranked #6 by Glory.Illovecoffee (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Times have changed so yes, we need a referendum. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a year old discussion here but I suggest be bold and create a table like at WP:MMANOT for the discussion to revolve around.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Won a tournament in a major kickboxing organization. When WP:KICK is updated, Glory will surely be considered top-tier. Luchuslu (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting for a top tier kickboxing organization is not one of the notability criteria at WP:KICK--fighting for a world title is and he's nowhere close to that.

Delete or Userfy Doesn't meet current notability criteria and assuming he'll meet new criteria is WP:CRYSTALBALL. He won a tournament that qualified him to compete in a Glory event--it's like winning MMA's TUF. That's not enough to show notability or meet WP:KICK. Since there's additional interest, I've opened a notability discussion at WT:KICK#Fighter notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glory is the largest kickboxing entity in the world, it currently has some of the best in the world signed. (Saki, Sato, Gaerts, etc) Dstrange (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion isn't about Glory, it's about Jacoby. You give no reason why he's notable.

Strong Keep I still see notability here. Even if it isn't extremely recent, he still seems significant in the eyes of a basic WP:BIO... I'm not too involved in the sports arena here, but generally, the article seems good enough to keep. SayItRight1 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters or kickboxers. All of the coverage is routine sports reporting--lists of results and promotional output for upcoming matches. Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, WP:KICK, or WP:GNG. I don't see consensus at the ongoing discussion for making major changes to WP:KICK so he's still not going to meet the new requirements.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kickboxing notability criteria will not be significantly changed, but Glory will be top tier promotion. At least wait for March 8, 2014, if Dustin wins Glory tournament that will bring him the title shot and he will be notable. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's way too much WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he wins the March 8 tournament he qualifies for another tournament and if he wins that tournament he still won't be Glory champion--just like Joe Schilling didn't become champion winning the 2013 tournament. Why doesn't Glory have a champion in any weight class? Mdtemp (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right just delete it Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for this type of activity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 20 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comindware Tracker

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

Please delete this spammy and non-neutral article for two reasons.

Reason 1:

This article was created through undisclosed paid editing by Alexandra Goncharik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam).

If you'd like proof, please see <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.freelancer.is/projects/Article-Rewriting-Article-Submission/Replace-existing-WIKIPEDIA-page-maintain.html>. On this cached page from a freelancer marketplace, Alexandra has written, in part:

"I have considerable experience in editing and submitting Wikipedia articles (5+ years), following its policies and guidelines. My proven track record consists of about 700 contributions, including creation of new articles about people, companies, their services and products. I really love doing this. My contributions log: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexandra_Goncharik (I can send you some examples of my articles in Wikipedia, if needed)."

Undisclosed paid editing is a cheap and sleazy thing to do. See also the two short cautionary tales at User:Durova/The dark side. Personally, I feel that even disclosed paid editing makes Wikipedia a worse place for the world to get information. Still, if you feel that you must do paid editing, then I request that you please not write new articles. Instead, get Wikipedians to write new articles for you. See WP:BPCOI.

Dear admins: Please delete the Comindware Tracker article per WP:NOPAY and WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

Reason 2:

ISTM that this product fails WP:AUD, which says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Well, Top Design Magazine, for one, is almost surely a magazine "of limited interest and circulation".

WP:42 says you need at least several mainstream sources, such as major newspapers. If you do find several such sources, please paste links below.

Dear admins: Please delete the article per WP:AUD.

Thanks for stopping by! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had concerns about the article from its creation. I cannot find better sources and all but one source in the article fail standards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a creator and a main contributer to this article I admit that I definitely had a conflict of interest while editing this page. However I was not payed for it (I created the article at the request of my former colleague a couple of years ago having a poor understanding of the principles of Wikipedia at that time). I should not have to agree to this proposal, and I regret it. I agree that this article has multiple issues and is written as promotional one. So I don't contest this nomination. —Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 12:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the article being created by an editor with a conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion. You will note that pages talking about COI state that editors with conflicts are discouraged from editing- they are not formally prohibited. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But, IIRC, promotional articles are forbidden per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing that looks like a high-quality independent source in the references. Makeuseof probably comes closest, but it's still pretty bloggish and their article is written in a way that makes it look more like an advertorial; no mention of any competing products in it for example, and contains language like "Fortunately for all managers and team leaders, there is a wonderful issue tracking solution available called Comindware Tracker." The coverage on Project-Management.com or GetApp.com have the same issues. The former uses language like "modern state-of-the-art", "highly dynamic" etc., while the latter in two looong "reviews" full of superlatives (like "automated processes management as its most unique feature") hasn't managed to find a single thing he didn't like about the product or mention any other product that might do something better (pretty odd for a reviewer who claims he "love[s] working with processes"). [My payoff for wasting my time reading all that is that I'll never go to GetApp.com to read any review ever--this was my first and last visit to their site.] Also, I didn't find any mentions of Comindware Tracker in Google Books. Overall, I don't think this product/company satisfies WP:PRODUCT/WP:CORP. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:48, 8 February 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. The participation was low, if someone is interested, one can try again in a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psyco Gundam

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. The references in the article are all either unsuitable or irrelevant to the topic of the article, so they do not count as significant coverage for the article. TTN (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing third party sources in books published, [6], [7], (Common Knowledge of Gundam (ガンダムの常識), Futabasha ISBN 978-4-575-30150-2 P.92) as well as making appearances in American video games.[8]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that sources are reliable sources does not mean their inclusion makes them instantly relevant to establishing notability. The first source is one of those collections of wiki articles that people put together and sell to suckers. That obviously doesn't count. Common Knowledge is referencing a minor bit of primary production information. That is not enough for notability, and I would not be surprised if the book was also primary given the details it is sourcing. I don't know how you could think sourcing its appearances would be an indicator of notability. That is not significant coverage in the least, and that would mean anything that has appeared in a couple pieces of media would be instantly notable. TTN (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First book is actually from wikia but the second book isn't exactly convincing. A reliable source for information? Yes, but I'm not sure a series specific guidebook counts as notability coverage in this case. The same goes for it being used in games. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:01, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Black Twitter. slakr^\ talk / 07:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen

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

I'm doubtful that a single hashtag, even if mentioned in multiple sources, deserves a separate Wikipedia article. Note that most of the sources stem from the period right around August 2013, when Ms. Kendall coined this hashtag. Compare WP:BLP1E. I'm looking forward to hearing other opinions on this. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups related deletion discussions. --Ronja (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may be unusual, but the subject appears reasonable notable and cited. I say keep because there are few other places such knowledge would be recorded other than on Wikipedia. --gilgongo (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three of the seven references are from December 31st or later. A search using Google, after clicking "news", yields 18 news stories dating from December through January. Further, it's still trending six months later. This is an ongoing conversation, not a single event.ErykahHuggins (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed vote, see below It would be pretty embarrassing to delete this article exactly when the discussion about #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen also outside Twitter appears to have been reactivated. Michelle Goldberg's 4-page article Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars, which was published in The Nation on 29th January 2014, started this round of discussion and it has already received tens of off-Twitter responses, in addition to reblogs and mentions. See e.g. Huffington Post 29th January Why The Problem Of Online Toxicity Is Not The Same Thing As White Feminists vs. Non-White Feminists or Wire, also 29th January The Incomplete Guide to Feminist Infighting. --Ronja (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gilgongo's rationale for keeping is the best delete rational I've heard in a long time: "I say keep because there are few other places such knowledge would be recorded other than on Wikipedia." This is a hashtag, or more generously, a small online issue that's reported on by some blogs and I guess an article out of The Nation. This is like running headfirst into the bar we set for notability. That it's mentioned in "18 news stories" is a strong indication of how this fails the most basic of our notability criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams, respectfully I think you may have misunderstood me. Eighteen was the number of stories in Google search on that particular day. There have probably been hundreds of news stories, not to mention countless blog entries. A search within huffingtonpost.com alone yields 150 hits. A search of jezebel.com yields 874, and feministe.us 2,320.ErykahHuggins (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did. All those "news" hits still fail our GNG That your best reference is more huffingtonpost stories only reinforces my point. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Even if the hashtag is mentioned in several articles, I don't think it has lasting notable in itself. It relates to a general debate about race and feminism; and to the degreee some part of the discussion started by the tag has lasting, notable effect, it can be included in relevant articles: feminism; black feminism or others. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Merge as an alternative vote, since there now are several votes and suggestions for merge, and I am fine with that; as also indicated in my first vote above. Iselilja (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons that ErykahHuggins and Ronja already articulated. This is an ongoing event with news articles published mere days ago. WP:BLP1E is about people, not sure it's relevant here. I see 33 articles in Google News now. There are a significant number of independent and reliable sources covering the hashtag. Phette23 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Black Twitter for going against WP:BLP1E, which bars "mono-notable" articles like this from being created. As Iselilja says, this subject doesn't appear to have legs. The fact that it's still trending on Twitter is irrelevant, as are the number of blog posts, since both sources generally fall afoul of WP:SPS.Eladynnus (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Phette23 has suggested, doesn't WP:BLP1E only apply to "biographies of living persons"?ErykahHuggins (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it cited in news events such as spree killings and an article about the flying penis prank pulled on president Putin several years ago. The text of the policy talks about "events" as well as individuals, so the policy covers more than just people. Eladynnus (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS may also be applicable. All of the citations in the article come from a two day period (January 27-29). Eladynnus (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a lot of reliable sources there for something up for AfD. And wp:BLP1E is, of course, irrelevant because it doesn't refer to a living person. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete It's one event within a larger issue about which little can be said. It should probably be a section of an article on intersectionality or Black feminism or Black twitter. Not certain which to propose but there's not enough noteworthy about it for it to be its own article. SPACKlick (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Black Twitter, it doesn't appear to be notable on its own yet. No need for a separate article at this time. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This debate has been going on since at least the 1960's according to Feminism#Civil rights movement and anti-racism. This means that this hashtag is a minor issue which could be or should be part a much better article. There is an article, Black feminism which seems to be a valid target. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (change of vote) The information in this article is worth saving and augmenting, but a separate article is not necessary. The most logical merge target IMO would be Black Twitter. --Ronja (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I think a merge and redirect to Black Twitter would be a good solution. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Black Twitter has a perfect place for a merge with this paragraph

Manjoo cited Brendan Meeder of Carnegie Mellon University, who argued that the high level of reciprocity between the hundreds of users who initiate hashtags (or "blacktags") leads to a high-density, influential network[9] (one notable example being Mikki Kendall's #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen ).

SPACKlick (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Black Twitter. Alternatively, weak keep and re-assess notability later, perhaps in a second AfD nomination. There are lots of sources, but none establishes notability "beyond a relatively short news cycle", which at present is impossible. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:31, 9 February 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^(talk) 15:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Dogs Lie (2005 film)

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources; IMDB doesn't count. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a review in Dread Central[9] and announcement/casting reported on MTV website[10] and recycled on other sites[11]. But I'm not sure that's enough to meet WP:NFILMS. However be aware that Rotten Tomatoes[12] seems to confuse this (directed by Stuart Lessner) with the Bobcat Goldthwait film Sleeping Dogs Lie (2006 film) so don't rely on the reviews listed there. This film does have notable stars, including the great Edward Asner, so it would be good to have info on it somewhere on Wikipedia. Possibly it could be merged to article on star Brad Wilk? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 January 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^(talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a newspaper article about the film, though admittedly a local newspaper doesn't do a whole lot to establish notability. Still, we've got enough coverage to at least make a fair argument now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pronovost

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

Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Some local media attention has been gained, but the actual effects of Pronovost, Powerband, and its parent company are questionable. I encourage you to simply visit Powerband's website at powerbandinternet.com and tell me what you think. Also, visit crunchbase.com/company/pronovost-technologies Whittledaughn (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If he is not already notable, he is close to it. He got quite a bit of local coverage due to his White House gig, and his company has received attention in the techie press. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 22 January 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^(talk) 20:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He seems just above the horizon in terms of notability for an entrepreneur. That his company haven't impacted anyone other than himself appears not to be a criterion for deletion. --gilgongo (talk) 12:26, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets minimal notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 00:47, 4 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sang-Soo

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

Unsourced biography about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a shame that people put so much effort into articles that so clearly fail criteria for inclusion, i.e. Wikipedia:Notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the article was created in 2009 which I think is before the inclusion criteria were formalized - its just been hiding.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 February 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. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iwan Ries and Co.

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

No claim of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First off, "one of the oldest family owned tobacco companies in North America" (per the article) is certainly a claim of notability. Secondly, the topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd call it WP:GNG rather than CORPDEPTH, but it is the same thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Article includes multiple in-depth mentions in reliable sources.Iniciativass (talk) 15:51, 10 February 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) Ethically^Yours! 12:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajin (manga)

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

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

No evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The page obviously needs work but I managed to find a couple of things that might help. Being a comparatively recent work by an newer author doesn't help it's case but there may be some more out there. A quick search on google will just turn up 30 scanlation sites, but I found two useful pages by using some common sense. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This manga's original title is 亜人. See also ja:亜人 (漫画). ひなどり(Hinadori) 13:52, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is pretty new and has since seen minor improvements since it was created. I see no WP:RUSH here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep from me as well but for different reasons. The problem with this sort of article is that it covers a subject still fairly new for this sort of media and isn't officially available in English which limits sourcing oppurtunities. It's doing decent sales figures though so there is a good chance it will stick around. The two items I added towards notability are both from the same english language web site, however they are simply english news items using notable Japanese language sources (Natalie is used by Yahoo Japan and others for news stories, Oricon is an official national chart company) so I don't see that being a cause for concern. I do think it's enough to keep the article, but I can see why some might find it less than convincing.Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would normally be premature to create an article on a series that only has two volumes, since it's not had the time to establish a solid fanbase much less get many English sources. In this case, however, it has two volumes and a nomination for the Manga Taisho award, which strongly suggests that it is a worthy topic for a stub: not only does that put us up to the standard minimal sourcing requirements, but even in the event of an early cancellation, a nominated series getting the axe will be news. --erachima talk 08:36, 10 February 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) Ethically^Yours! 12:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reichskriminalpolizeiamt

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

We already have this article at Kriminalpolizei. Hoops gza (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with this article. It expands on the summary content at Kriminalpolizei, and adds some further details. So keep. In the unlikely case that this is deleted, don't forget to redirect to Kriminalpolizei#Nazi Germany. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. It is really redundant and the early history can be merged into the Kriminalpolizei article. The Reichskriminalpolizeiamt was absorbed and became known as Amt V (Department V), the Criminal Police in the RSHA. The article is not needed. It is not the same as the Gestapo-apples and oranges. The Kriminalpolizei article should cover its whole history in one place. Kierzek (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No argument for deletion has been brought forward so far. Kriminalpolizei is a more general article on plain-cloths police in Germany (also a bit lopsided at the moment regarding the Nazi era). Whereas nobody would seriously argue to merge Gestapo into the RSHA article, although it shared the fate of the RKPA. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:05, 30 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Separate, defined organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. No valid rationale for deletion offered. AfD isn't for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 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. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arp-Madore 1

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

Unsourced, unreferenced, and non-notable. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep; I can't seem to be able to locate this object on SIMBAD (although it doesn't seem to be a hoax based on Google Scholar results). Anyone know what it's listed under? Based on the GS results so far though, I'm leaning towards delete. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to go by AM1 in SIMBAD, though other papers call it "AM-1". I believe this is the discovery paper: [13]. Certainly raised all the red flags for me on first look, but now I'd say it should be kept, since SIMBAD's bibliography provides numerous singular studies of the object. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the papers on the relevant entry, I agree that it should be kept. This isn't to say the article is in good state; it isn't, and needs major work. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 30 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a few of the more relevant SIMBAD hits as references to the article, and expanded its text from them. As the subject of multiple independent published works that have this object in their titles, it clearly passes WP:NASTRO #3 and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:NASTRO. The article has been improved since the nomination with references to multiple reliable sources in which this object was treated in depth. Nice work, David and Astrocog. --Mark viking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Lough cheese

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

Reason Jlonergan (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" is little more than blatant advertising for this small company. It reads like a blurb from some promotional material. It is a small local business near where I come from but it really does not warrant a Wiki article is it really isn't noteworthy outside of the locality.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the article back so that editors actually have a chance to address some of the comments made above. Seriously, 30 minutes between listing and deletion???? Nobody notified? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article fully meets the criteria of WP:N. It has significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources such as a newspaper, and a book on Irish cheese. Can the original proposer or another editor please point out the parts that are considered "blatent advertising" and "blurb for some promotional material"? All the content has been sourced and checked, but if there's stuff that is considered non-encyclopedic, that content can be addressed I'm sure. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per [14] and [15] pp. 68–69. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT.--Laun chba ller 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view WP:TNT as applicable for this article, because it certainly isn't "hopelessly irreparable" as per WP:TNT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also puzzled over why a self-described "staunch inclusionist" would argue that the article is so bad, it falls under WP:TNT. Care to explain a little more? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant looking award and a couple of sources. Passes wp:N (although not by much) and I strongly disagree with wp:TNT Neonchameleon (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not dispute that the article is well written and put together and that it has references for the claims made. However, that in itself does not necessarily mean the article is justified. I do dispute the subject's noteworthiness as, as I already said, it is a fairly small "mom & pop" business of little note outside of the local area in which it is based. An article cannot be justified simply on the basis of it being well written and referenced - it has to be about something notable - small, local enterprises are generally not notable. If we allowed this article because sources are cited, then should we be allowing articles on every back street tyre shop and convenience store simply because they are mentioned in a few websites or newspapers? I think not. I feel the article's language is promoting the business by discussing the products it makes and pointing out that they won an award.User:Jlonergan 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability is pretty well documented in WP:N. Just because it's a tiny operation doesn't exclude it. It's a very well known operation producing high quality products. Because of this, they got noticed. And written about. That's what makes it notable (as per policy). And any small, local enterprises that are similarly written about in reliable sources for the products they produce will also pass WP:GNG. If you find me a Mom and Pop tyre shop that gets the same amount of coverage as these guys, I'll write the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:57, 7 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Arts Group

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

Promotion of a non-notable arts group, full of copyvio images. damiens.rf 10:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 10 February 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The T.S. Eliot Appreciation Society

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG, there are a few Dutch Gnews sources which have them on the bill for "battle of the bands" style club gigs, but not significant coverage. Maybe at best a case of WP:TOOSOON, as the single album release to date also falls short of WP:NBAND. Roberticus (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very difficult to judge how much coverage there is while the Google News Archive is down. GNews has a few hits, which suggests that there may be older coverage that we don't see there. --Michig (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, perhaps this is why I found so little. Is the Archive down long term? They were formed pretty recently per their (his) website, so I'm not sure how much more we'll find... Roberticus (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources I found through Google were primarily blogs or trivial coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 24 January 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, Stifle (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep album review & feature in OOR, Nov. 2013, concert review @ 3VOOR12 [16]. Written In Music [17] also looks an RS. [18] 78.19.106.134 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reviews by major websites or newspapers; as far as I can tell, no touring outside Benelux. Please correct me if I am wrong. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC) No, busking and house concerts do not count for notability. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 11 February 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurthohin

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

Band article that has lacked published, reliable sources to prove notability for a couple of years.

I am also nominating the following two recently created, unsourced articles on two of the band's album releases that both fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 22:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - one of the most popular bands in Bangladesh, enough reliable sources for the band as well as the albums - [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Zayeem. Aurthohin is one of the preeminent rock metal bands of Bangladesh.--31.205.56.85 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 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, Stifle (talk) 09:15, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 3 February 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} 04:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shelving

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, is not (at least from this user's experience) accepted or widely-used anatomical terminology LT910001 (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge somewhere +/- leave redirect-- the term is occasionally used: [24], [25] ... but this is such a niche article that if it is indeed notable suggest merge to an appropriate anatomic parent article... Lesion (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two usages: one obscure jargon, the other unworthy of a redirect to inguinal ligament.Novangelis (talk) 19:15, 22 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Ratković

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

Former Serbian political advisor. Cannot find evidence that subject has ever held an elected office, and I am unsure as to whether he meets notability guidelines due to lack of sources Flaming Ferrari (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 10 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Audinwood

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

MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 16:15, 11 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher T. Gates

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

Subject has held various Non-profit organization positions including President of the National Civic League, Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party and Executive Director of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, however I am not convinced that any of these roles constitute notability Flaming Ferrari (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head of a state party is not notable; head of National Civic League (formerly known as National Municipal League) is, just as other really famous organizations. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Some of the references can be fixed using the wayback machine.Iniciativass (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 16 February 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 Pop Idol (series 2). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Manning

AfDs for this article:

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

Former pop-idol contestant. Was not the eventual winner of the show. Unconvinced that she meets notability guidelines Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I googled her and she's done nothing of note i can find. An appearance on pop idol doesn't convey notability, suggest her page is redirected to pop idol series xyz as is common practice in these cases. Szzuk (talk) 20:33, 12 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Kober

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has been previously nominated and survived however I am not convinced that the Leader of a Council Borough is inherently notable Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would consider that leaders of London Borough Councils are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full scale Grauniad interview and elected at a level that only just misses the GNG on its own. Also tangentially tangled up in a couple of high profile issues like Baby P and Mark Duggan. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 10 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Tipler

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

Subject is an automotive writer/journalist. Unconvinced if he meets notability guidelines Flaming Ferrari (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable enough. Amazon Noted "authority" Publisher/vanity bio Woodshed (talk) 00:33, 29 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His books appear to have been reviewed in reliable independent sources. That makes him notable as an author. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:56, 11 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noddfa, Treorchy

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. ColonelHenry (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a building that has some significance in the history of the south Wales valleys. Cannot understand argument for deletion!Macs15 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding evidence that Macs15 is right: it played a significant role in its sphere. I've added another source that had information on the building, and the Treorchy choir's history page has a photograph that may be old enough that we can use it. I've also added its full name: Noddfa Welsh Baptist Chapel, Treorchy / Capel Bedyddwyr Cymraeg Noddfa; that may help in finding additional sources. We shouldn't let the loss of Google News Archives make us too quick to infer lack of notability, and I'm thinking that fire must still be recorded somewhere in the media. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been both a notable chapel and a large and impressive piece of architecture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though would like to see sourcing for the superlatives "one of the largest and grandest" - when unsourced, this kind of language becomes a target for AfD since it looks like an attempt to make something look notable that might not actually be. -- GreenC 03:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being covered in detail in sources such as Valleys of Song: Music and Society in Wales 1840-1914, the topic passes the general notability guide. Andrew (talk) 19:29, 6 February 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, with noted hesitations but a clear "keep" consensus, currently. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pelling

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

No evidence of meeting our notability guidelines is present in the article. The only sources given are self-published books and blogs. The subject activity edits here and likes to promote himself as a expert on the Voynich Manuscript and other things, using his own blog and self-published books as sources. Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did indeed make some edits here (a modest 13 edits out of 67 total edits, over a seven year period), but the other 54 edits were made by other people entirely. I have been interviewed on television and radio about the Voynich Manuscript and other cipher mysteries a good number of times, and have been cited and quoted in numerous books, magazines and newspapers (e.g. The Sunday Times two months ago). I did write many computer games under the nom de plume "Orlando M. Pilchard" (I removed them all from the Wikipedia page in response to a previous criticism, but other Wikipedia users have since reinstated three, apparently believing them notable), and I did invent the word "gamification". Nickpelling (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citations to these sources so they can be added to the article. In the absence of citations to independent articles that establish your notability, your article should be deleted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject is credited as having coined the term gamification.[26][27][28][29] He's also noted as a programmer of video games on the BBC Micro and Commodore-64, and I recall repeated reference to his BBC Micro work in various 8-bit Acorn computer magazines back in the day. These are unfortunately not all readily available online, but I'll see what I can find. Pelling was also interviewed in 2006 in connection with retrogaming, and the manuscript work has also been independently noted. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:37, 4 February 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) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm not finding substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. A little confusing because there are other authors with the same name. if there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources please provide it for consideration. thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep if only for his production of some landmark games I grew up playing. I found his page whilst researching Arcadians, and if arbitrary deletion had taken place I would never have been able to track down the other games made by him for Acornsoft, etc. His fifteen minutes of fame were more like 15 years, eclipsed and forgotten by time perhaps and maybe too old for some editors here, but this is far from a vanity bio and the person does clearly meet the notability guidelines IMHO. (@bashpr0mpt on Twitter, welcome invite to add me, I follow back.) BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be established through reliable secondary sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pelling's blog on mysterious ciphers is wonderfully creative and well-written. He is in the top rank of Voynich specialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulAg54 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are not criteria for having a Wikipedia article. Notability must be established through reliable secondary sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm coming here from Talk:Voynich manuscript, where NP stated, "I am currently trying to find clickable versions of the 20+ newspaper articles where I have been interviewed and quoted at length." The claim, in and of itself, seems to confer notability. However, I looked at WP:Notability (people). WP:BASIC seems to fail. Pelling's claim is newspaper interviews, and interviews would not be secondary sources. An interviewer is usually not critiquing his subject. Newspaper interviews about technical subjects would not usually have the interviewer being an expert in the field. Primary sources do not contribute to notability. WP:ANYBIO seems to fail: there are no awards and there does not seem to be any widely recognized achievement. Coining "gamification" can be covered in that article; the book Gamification: A Simple Introduction by Andrzej Marczewski mentions Pelling in passing in the foreword, but apparently nowhere else; the comments suggest others developed the field. Being an early game programmer needs context. Are the games significant in their own right? Writing a program or developing a product does not imply notability. Trevj's comment re Acorn can go either way: is it stature from other gamers or more newspaper-style interviews. Is it a narrow trade pub? The comment by Bash raises a question about NP and Acornsoft: is NP one of many programmers developing the games or is he the sole developer? NP is not pointing to significant achievements in game programming. NP is not claiming patents or significant developments. The article uses computer games to claim notability, but neither Pelling nor Pilchard are mentioned in that article. Neither is there mention in BBC Micro. The game Elite (video game) (not developed by NP) is mentioned, and that article did not have trouble pulling up sources (the game was put on many platforms). NP holds himself out as an expert and a researcher on the VM, but nothing suggests that WP:Notability (academics) applies. I don't think there's any claim to writing referreed papers for Crypto or other significant cryptographic pubs. WP:AUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE does not seem to hold for VM (regarded as an important figure; widely cited; peers/successors reference his work; significant theory or technique). Blogs and self-published works are not evidence for N. Where is a secondary source that confers statutre on NP? Maybe there's a little more for gaming, but I'm ignorant there. I suspect there have been many books written about programming games; if NP was prominent, then why isn't he mentioned in them? I'm leaning delete. Glrx (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment pretty much summarizes my view. I'm not a deletionist by any stretch of the imagination, but I have tried and failed to find secondary sources that confer notability. Folks have mentioned here that his blog is good or that he knows a lot about Voynich, but these are not compelling arguments for the subject meeting our notability standards. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 11:48, 1 April 2008 version of the article includes numerous games, although it is accepted that there are no sources and therefore we don't know the extent of the subject's involvement. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say keep, but I don't see a clear path (other than IAR). I'd like the newspaper articles and such to do it, but I'm not comfortable with that given the WP advice above. There's a claim above that NP has "been cited and quoted in numerous books". That looks good, but when I followed the book link, there were books that republished/mirror WP content; books about VM were prior to the selfpub. One of the computer game articles suggested that the computer game resembled an existing arcade game. There's lots of weak stuff; just give me something solid. Glrx (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I've peeled back several layers here and I just keep finding self-published sources and self-referencing bits of information. Just being interviewed or contributing to video game development does not confer notability. There are hundreds of people that work on these things and they're not notable. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinct difference between "video game development" as we now know it in 2014 and individual videogame authorship (solely or largely by a single individual) of the '80s (and in some cases '90s). -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hopefully your question can be answered and the sources can be located. I would have no problem recreating this article with secondary sources even if it's deleted here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It's a shame that the sources are so patchy. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some historical cipher-related interviews: (2001) New Scientist (Catherine Zandonella) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17223174.900-book-of-riddles.html (subscriber pay-wall), (2003) Nature http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031215/full/news031215-5.html , (2013)http://nautil.us/issue/6/secret-codes/the-artist-of-the-unbreakable-code . Sadly, all my (non-retro) computer games press interviews predate the modern Internet. Yes, I agree it's patchy, but the twists and turns of a person's real life rarely arrange themselves in the neat patterns that would make them useful. Nickpelling (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions (directed at article subject Mr Pelling) Of the video games you've worked on (I have no direct knowledge of later aspects contributing towards notability), for how many (or for what proportion) were you basically the sole author? And what references (if any) do you recall that home computing (or other gaming) magazines, etc. noted your personal involvement and/or interviewed you, etc.? (I accept that the answers could amount to original research, but they may provide direction for further searches for sources.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My original self-designed / self-developed computer games were Frak!, Firetrack, and 3D Pool / 3D Pocket Pool. I was the sole programmer and main developer on more than 10 others, some of which (like Atom Galaxians, Arcadians, Zalaga) were inspired by existing arcade games; conversions of licensed arcade games (Enduro Racer); conversions between platforms (Dandy (though Mike Bryant helped keep me awake), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (with Carl Muller), Monopoly, Bart Simpson meets Radioactive Man, Wing Commander, Duke Nukem (with Paul Shirley), etc); and original publisher-owned titles (Loopz, Bangkok Knights, Battlemaster). These were all reviewed in the computer games press at the time, but where in the loft the folder containing my copies of them all is I don't know. Beyond these titles, I worked on more than 20 other titles, often brought in as a specialist to work on particular hard-to-get-right technologies (data compression, soft-skinning, speed optimization etc) - that's just the way the industry went over that period. Here's an interview with me from 1996: https://web.archive.org/web/20050306232855/http://www.beebgames.com/npinterv.htm Nickpelling (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I recall reading that was the case for Frak! and Firetrack. The beebgames.com interview seems to be a self-published source with apparently with no editorial oversight, so is unfortunately of little significance in terms of demonstrating notability. Maybe I'll be able to locate something else from BITD, but I can't bank on either (a) finding time to do so within the foreseeable future; or (b) actually having copies of the relevant magazines here where I live. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very very weak keep As sources exist for the gamification stuff he should probably get a stub for that. But the Voynich self-pub shows no signs of notability so I removed that section. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE. I've located an interview dating to 1987, and have also added a source to Frak! (although the review there doesn't mention the programmer). I sincerely doubt we'll get any better online sources than this (about the computer games aspect) before the end of this discussion, which is typical of such topics of the era. I've not mentioned the software company, Aardvark Software, although that's referred to in the interview. I've also not attempted to incorporate any of the gamification refs I noted above (mainly because my personal knowledge is lacking there). If the subject wishes to undetake further edits to the article (in accordance with the COI guidelines, I don't necessarily see a problem with doing so. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 00:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a link to an article on gamification quoting me several times in today's edition of the British newspaper "Metro", with an infographic that I think was put together by IBM - incidentally, I don't think anyone has linked Muttley to gamification before, so Metro got a nice soundbite out of me. http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/25/twiddling-your-thumbs-in-the-office-can-gamification-revolutionise-the-workplace-4316519/ And here also is a link to an article on the Voynich Manuscript in last weekend's Boston Globe that quotes me several times - http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/02/23/why-scholars-can-resist-uncrackable-voynich-manuscript/FWGMJjrqolrQ50L86SpkQP/story.html Nickpelling (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a link to a 2008 History Today article I wrote (though behind a subscriber wall) on the early history of the telescope: http://www.historytoday.com/nick-pelling/who-invented-telescope Because it suggested a Barcelonan origin for the telescope, for a few weeks I was a minor celebrity in Spain, even appearing on the evening news. Whether that's "notable" or not I can't say: but it is what it is. Nickpelling (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: Pursuant to the links Nickpelling has posted, I'm leaning toward keeping at this point. Unfortunately I won't have time this weekend to modify the article to integrate the sources. Can anyone help? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say 'yes'. But if so, it's unlikely to be before the AFD is closed (or relisted). Sorry. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainviews.ie

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

Subject fails WP:WEBSITE criteria. It reads in a promotional tone and there are almost no reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 10 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem's Lot (Stephen King)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Stephen King's works through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. The only real world information is a rather trivial piece primary production information and three sources for a statement about Lovecraft influencing his work that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article. TTN (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The setting for one of the best know group of works in contemporary fiction. Such articles are not justified as a mater of routine, but they are in this particular. If it were one particular novel, a merge would be possible, but since many of his works are set elsewhere, there's really no suitable alternative location. Furthermore a search for references shoould be able to find published discussions of the setting as such. FWIW, the nom and I have argued this in many venues over the years, but I though some sort of a balance had been reached where it was accepted that WP coverage of fiction can include articles on plot and setting and characters where the works were sufficiently important. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yeah, it's a bit crufty, but this is encyclopedic enough as an explanatory mechanism for one of the leading authors in American contemporary fiction. See, for sake of comparison, Yoknapatawpha County for William Faulkner or Middle-earth for J. R. R. Tolkien. Carrite (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 10 February 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 The Dark Tower (series). Due to low participation over the long listing period this should be deemed to be an editorial action rather than a closure. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maerlyn's Rainbow

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

This does not establish notability independent of The Dark Tower (series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While not notable as a standalone article, it is a important element within the series. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cooks the Bakery

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per:

Birmingham Mail
Birmingham Post (Scroll down on page for article)
British Baker magazine
Bromsgrove Advertiser
British Baker magazine
Coventry Telegraph
British Baker magazine
The Grocer
Express and Star
Romsey Advertiser
Birmingham Post
The Times (subscription required)
Computer Weekly

– In the event you haven't already done so, please consider performing source searching suggested at Section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. A major UK chain with 100+ outlets at one time and plenty of sources. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH., --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:43, 3 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man Meat Fire

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable / fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH~~ meets WP:GNG per:

BBC
BBC
BBC
The Grocer (subscription required) Full page independent article. (Preview here, scroll down on page)
US Fed News Service (business news)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that depth. Minor mentions on the BBC and a press release from the firm that they have applied for a trademark? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ping User:Philafrenzy: Did you preview the full page, independent article from The Grocer? It appears you didn't include it in your analysis. Also, in this source, don't forget to click on the "transcript" button on the page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? The first two are the same Dragons Den style pitch at different places, the third is a weblink only as far as I can see, the fourth is a decent article from The Grocer which I have read on Nexis and the fifth is a press release. It's not enough surely. Are we going to give an article to every firm that manages to get a low level of publicity for their product? This firm's product is more tasty than they are notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The third BBC source in my !vote above here is a radio broadcast that needs to be listened to, rather than read. Also, I don't consider BBC coverage to be "low level" whatsoever, as it broadcasts in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. Furthermore, BBC has very high standards for journalistic objectivity, "to provide impartial public service broadcasting..." (quote per the BBC article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the individual BBC programme doesn't it? Being on screen for 5 minutes on a not very important BBC programme is not enough, otherwise every game show contestant would have an article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:56, 29 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in independent sources has any depth of coverage. Fails WP:CORP. Too promotional without independent commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi User:SmokeyJoe: See the preview here (scroll down on the page after opening it) of the full page article in The Grocer (the Grocer article is paywalled). It's a full-page article by an independent, reliable source. I personally consider a full-page article about a product to be significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be write. I see images of text that are significant coverage. The question is: Are they independent? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 04:31, 18 February 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hominids of the Ringworld

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

This does not establish notability independent of the Ringworld series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thesis sort of article is only justified when the underlying works are famous. These group of novels certainly are. It might even be aceptable to consider individual articles for some of them, but there should be no object forthis sort of modest combination article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Fails WP:LISTN. The fact that the novels are famous does not make everything associated with them inherently notable. The child articles still must establish notability beyond that of their parent article. Wikia is the place to document intricate fictional worlds, their histories, and their fantastical races. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 5 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Danel

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

I am a little unfamiliar with our standards for musicians, however I note that the only sources on the page are broken links, directory sources, and random pages that are not reliable sources. This source is the only one that looks ok.

Either he is not notable, or he is notable but the current article is almost exclusively promotion and original research. In either case a deletion seems appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the standards aren't difficult to grasp. Sell a bunch of records, or release a couple of records on a big label, get some attention from the press, and there you are. It's hard to believe that this promopiece, full of discographies and whatnot, is so poorly sourced, and that there are so few reliable sources available for this guy (yours is valid but doesn't have much to say). The French article is just as bad (it's even tagged as promotional, first time I've seen that in a French article), and the Dutch is probably worse (I checked to see if they had some references to offer). So I'm hesitant to say delete right now; I'm curious to see if this AfD brings up something new. And perhaps someone will be excited enough to seriously prune this resume/article. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ! There's been some talk on the French article. I added some sources here and there on it at the time. But some guys seemed to be quite agressive about the article or the artist himself. It seemed to me it was quite abusive sometimes. The promotionnal tag is quite recent, and appeared without any major change if I remember. Internet is quite full of references about the guy (records, gold discs, videos, duets with guitar greats etc.). There are videos of tv advertising, gold discs ceremonies at sony records, press articles, etc. In my opinion, the article has to be modified, but certainly not deleted. I suggest I can do that and you see what you think about it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.150.158 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Changes are done, and new sources have been added. It is certainly three times shorter now, which is a good thing. I think it is now aaceptable :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.150.158 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs cleaning and inclusion of material from the French article, but a number one album in his nation's charts and gold status meets WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 24 January 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^(talk) 23:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:31, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Walter Görlitz. May also benefit from being tagged with {{expand language}}. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:25, 3 February 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Eddie Garcia

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

Totally unsourced fancruft-article listing awards and nominations allegedly received by a Filipino celebrity. If there had been at least some sources/references in the article it could have been merged with the main article, Eddie Garcia, but as it is, with not a single source/reference for anything, there's nothing to merge. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can. It. Be. VERIFIED? That's the only relevant question here, not whether there are presently sources in the article. Is the information verifiable? And given that nearly all of the listed awards are notable and/or from notable institutions, it is not at all plausible that reliable sources for their awards and nominations is not available. So this and the two identical AFD nominations by the same editor strike me as a poorly thought out failure to follow WP:BEFORE, and contrary to policy, particularly at WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and (for the benefit of the incorrect !vote above) WP:BLPDELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 21 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eddie Garcia - There simply isn't enough material to warrant a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're merging all of this, it'll be a lot of material that will added there. –H T D 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)r[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. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Allstars

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

A multitude of sins. "combined talents" - unencyclopedic. Articles are not lists unless they expressly state it in the title. Also totally unreferenced. Laun chba ller 13:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my delete !vote per comments below about the band charting. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My reading of WP:MUSIC is Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart which should be satisfied with 4 charthits in Germany and Austria as well as 3 charthits in Switzerland. Agathoclea (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you put its chart successes into the article.--Laun chba ller 11:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the refs. I can't convert the templates used on dewiki. Agathoclea (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just knock up a simple discography like the one at Christian Scharnweber.--Laun chba ller 13:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GOODCHARTS states that http://www.austriancharts.at/search.asp?search=Trance+Allstars&cat=s are good and so they meet WP:MUSICBIO, but the article needs to be cleaned-up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 24 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly still needs some maintenance, but the most pressing problems have been resolved. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:18, 10 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMfighter

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor reviews do not provide enough to make this a notable software company or product. Indeed, it's impossible to tell if this "article" is about the company ... or the product. Only references are to its own, and external links are not sufficient to denote notability ES &L 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sufficient reviews of the product over a considerable amount of time. The PCmag review runs to 5000 words about this single product so cannot be considered minor. Plenty of other reviews including some which place it best in class satisfy all the requirements of WP:N.--Salix alba (talk): 13:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the reason why this should be kept is it seems to be in the top three products in the spam filtering category. A google search for "spam filter" puts in the first page, Cnet's list of spam-filter software has it as the second most popular [30] (the assassin and phone-number lookup entries are sponsored/not relevant). --Salix alba (talk): 15:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Software of unclear notability, deleted in afd in 2011. Apart from the PCmag ref in the article, all of the other reviews I found were from blogs or download sites, and almost all a paragraph in length or less. the crunchbase overview is basically a business listing and does not establish notability. toptenreviews, the other review referenced in the article, has been discussed several times at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the consensus has been that it is not RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional, and primary contributors to the article have been other SPAs, suggesting a possible ongoing promotional strategy.Dialectric (talk) 12:28, 21 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that a Crunchbase company profile doesn't impart notability for GNG/CORPDEPTH purposes. See related discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verasafe. The PC Magazine review does impart notability for GNG purpose. I'm still on the fence about the overall verdict for this product. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The free, consumer product is also mentioned in a dozen books [31] (usually with a brief blurb) which indicates that the PC Mag review wasn't a fluke, i.e. there is some sustained interest from independent sources in the product. A shorter review exist in PC World [32], and a review of the (non-free) server-side product can be found in Techrepublic [33]. There's also a review of the Apple version in a more obscure publication [34]. The TopTenReviews review has a video version [35] (on "AOL On"). These last two sources I've mentioned are of rather low quality though (close to being just adverts). Since this is a Danish company, information focused on the company should be sought in Danish sources too. Computerworld.dk has a couple of articles here and here focused on the company rather than its products. dk:Business.dk (a site of Berlingske) also has an article [36] (of 2005 vintage) about the company and so does Ekstrabladet (2011) [37] (though what that latter article says mostly is that SPAMfighter's author has made it to the millionaire's club and has relocated to the US...); probably more reliable sources exist in Danish because a google search for https://www.google.com/search?q=SPAMfighter+site:dk returns plenty of hits, but I'm not exactly familiar with the Danish press to immediately tell apart the RS ones from the rest. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:15, 29 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 3 February 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) 07:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African American Office Holders in Colorado

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

This is not the sort of article that should be on Wikipedia IMO. Race should not be relevant - this article draws attention to race and somehow marks these people out as being different. I just don't see how it's relevant. (I accept that in years gone by, it was a big deal. But it shouldn't be like that now.) Would we accept a corresponding White office holders in Colorado article? No - I think that would be seen as racist. This is no different. Bazonka (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you'd have a better argument if you argued that it doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN, as your current rationale amounts to "I don't like it". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment... I agree that it doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN. Bazonka (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not due to WP:LISTN but due to total absence of RS ... I have no idea if all these names are just made-up and no desire to do the searching necessary to find out; however, if it were better sourced I would probably have voted Weak Keep as this might be useful content. I agree we should NOT have "White Office Holders in Colorado," however, I would be okay with "White Office Holders in Zimbabwe." On the same count I'd otherwise be okay with "African American Office Holders in Colorado." But it would need so much work that there's no point in keeping this. BlueSalix (talk) 21:13, 24 January 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, consists of WP:SYNTHESIS. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis and original research. If secondary sources had mentioned the number of African American office holders in Colorado as something important about the state or its history that could be mentioned in relevant articles. But what's done here is just present us with a list of the intersection of three qualities: African American, office holder, and Colorado. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:44, 3 February 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^(talk) 16:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom Series

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

Non-notable self-published series by non-notable author. Orange Mike | Talk 08:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's true the first four books were self-published. They were so successful (in the top ten best-sellers list, according to the Christian Booksellers Association for Christian Youth Literature for the month of December 2008) that Black was signed to Multnomah Publishing in 2008.Source: Williston Herald and Grand Forks Herald. Even though sourcing is mostly local. There is national sourcing such as Focus on the Family and The Old Schoolhouse Magazine. -- GreenC 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - so they appeared on a specialized minority bestseller list for a single month; and have been reviewed in a couple of publications, one not known for literary reviews and the other highly obscure. Still no case here for actual notability under WP:BOOK. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  - I disagree. Christian books are their own genre, they are not "minorities", we don't discriminate, the sources are appropriate for the subject matter. -- GreenC 16:09, 26 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not familiar with this series, but looking at the sources, I agree that that sources are appropriate for the subject and seem to pass WP:Source and WP:BKCRIT. Additional reliable sources could be added without much difficulty. I have some familiarity with the publishing industry and this series appears to have far better sales, reviews, and press than most self-published works (at least from what a google search can reveal). The Christian book genre is not a "minority" genre. Edit Ferret (talk) 19:44, 11 February 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^(talk) 09:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Hohenstein

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

Local meteorologist. No substantial non local coverage; DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorologist has worked across the US and has some world notoriety Weathershow ( talk ) 03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 3 February 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. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan–Brazil relations

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

fails WP:GNG. this is trying to make notable relations about a relation with a tiny Asian country. no embassies and Bhutan doesn't even bother allocating a non resident ambassador to Brazil. the common memberships prove nothing about actual relations. the level of trade is very low, even the article admits "In 2011, Bhutan ranked 236th among Brazil's trade partners, having a 0,00% participation in Brazilian foreign trade". the fact that you have to pass through a third country to fly to Bhutan adds zero to relations. the claim that Brazil is interested in Bhutan's happiness index seems more like the opinion of one person and not the Government [38]. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how this violates WP:GNG. It has a significant amount of independent and reliable sources to back it up. Just because it's not a strong relationship doesn't mean it's not worthy of being described. WP:NOTPAPER. Pikolas (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of the sources do not deal with actual relations in depth. Relations do exist but they are minor not notable. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re WP:NOTPAPER : "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". LibStar (talk) 00:37, 22 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I agree that the article is unlikely to become much bigger than it already is, and that it hardly asserts the subject's relevance, it is indeed sourced, though that part could be improved with more independent sources that actually cover the subject, and not only mention it. I know it's strange to have an article saying "these countries have no significant relations, no embassies, and almost no trades", but, well, that's still information. If I had come across this article, I wouldn't even mind proposing its deletion. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although I agree this is near to farcical, the nom must surely be aware that the measure of whether an article can be sustained on a subject has nothing to do with whether it is important, thriving, indepth or large, but whether it is reliably sourced. I see that it meets the requirements of the GNG. Done deal. Ravenswing 23:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the bare existence of relations is not the same as notable relations. you even admit relations are farcical. the article is based on a series of factoids. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete I normally !vote to keep these articles but this time I think it is indeed too minor. (I advised the contributor yestersday that they were pushing things a little beyond what would be supported.) TheGNG needs to be used with common sense, both for keeping and for deleting. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Brazil–India relations. Not a significant independent relationship, but merely an add-on to Brazil–India relations. India remains influential over Bhutan's foreign policy, defence and commerce. Bhutan has had no ambassador to Brazil. Brazil's ambassador to Bhutan is in his day job Brazil's ambassador to India. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with such a merge as it is POV. Same way that Australia is influential over Nauru, Papua New Guinea, does not mean bilaterals of these small nations get redirected to larger nations. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG. By all normal measures of bilateral relations, this fails - de minimus trade, no state visits, etc. - yet it passes WP:GNG on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources. Easily fits into the category of WP:ODD. This is right at the edge of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 11 February 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BAYADA Home Health Care

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

International company with hardly any significant coverage except for local newspapers. The businessweek.com ref seems to carry the most weight, but that is merely a description of the company, no coverage. Note that this article seems to be the result of paid editing, not necessarily that it is deemed notable and needs an article. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the references, they appear to be a major company in the field. Realistically, that's the best criterion, since we could interpret hte sources as meeting or not meeting the subtantiality requirements of the GNG depending on what conclusion we thought sensible. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. this company is based in Philadelphia yet its major newspaper only yields 2 small hits on this company. [39]. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 29 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bayada is a very large Home Health Care company and has very deep ties that started in the PA/NJ area. The references are solid and factual based on what I know about the company and I feel that people can get value from this article and vote to keep it. abiondo ( talk ) 10:27, 04 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:IKNOWIT not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size, scope and reliable and verifiable sources about the company satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient coverage to build a well-referenced article. Clearly sufficient for WP:GNG Pichpich (talk) 00:42, 14 February 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. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heckford

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

Nice try, but not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A marketing agency marketing itself on wikipedia. There is no news coverage (AFAICT) in local sources, let alone national sources. SPACKlick (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as comment above article is marketing spam--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karmarama (advertising agency)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per:

– In the event you haven't already done so, please consider performing source searching suggested at Section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 10 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profero

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is your !vote based exclusively upon sources within the article, or does it include the availability of sources via internet news and book searches? Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

– In the event you haven't already done so, please consider performing source searching suggested at Section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:07, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 10 February 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} 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rees Bradley Hepburn

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Awards are minor and concept of being first carbon neutral advertising agency seems like greenwash. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched news archives and can find no coverage. Don't believe this firm meets WP:GNG. The two newspaper references in the article are dead, EcoArc makes no reference to RBHand the Drum reference is dead, Page is currently practically an advert. SPACKlick (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note presence of multiple awards shows notability.Iniciativass (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What awards have they received that are notable? Could you point me to the sources for those?SPACKlick (talk) 17:11, 10 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MAKE Motorsports

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

Prod was disputed; article has little content, with no indication whatsoever of how it meets WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

waiting for improvements prior to saying keep or delete I'm aware of this subject, it is clearly notable and worthy but the article needs vast improvements for inclusion. A worthy subject to create an article about. A couple of sources would help DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many useless redirects/articles created by a spamtroll days ago. No need to have this. --D-Day (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 January 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no claim of notability, no sign of mention in secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this team is indeed notable and the page could easily be improved, this is a case where it would be best to blow it up and start over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 5 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Brick Road

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

Notability seems to be based on one event in 2013. No depth or wider significance. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep promotional wording needs to be toned, otherwise sufficient RS for a stub

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not hugely detailed but has sources from 2006, 2009, 2013 so notability is down to more than one event. An alternative might be a merge to founder Frank Lowe (advertiser). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 10 February 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. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human Givens

AfDs for this article:

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

Okay, I've spent some time looking on the 'net. It is four years since the last AfD and looking online I am still seeing only a mass of primary sources...and some occasional comments and single case studies and/or mentions here or there...and nothing systematic in any secondary Review Article at all. Maybe I am missing something...? I suspect not but maybe some proponents can come up with some Review Articles discussing (or even mentioning) it. I'd probably have let it slide, but then when I read this and this I start to wonder about this...and wonder whether the page's existence actually obfuscates more than clarifies and whether it may be better relegated to a mention on the cognitive behavioural therapy page or biopsychosocial model or something...or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially delete-- very reminiscent of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which certainly is notable. Could only find one use of the term "human givens" on PubMed: Andrews, W (2011 Dec). "Piloting a practice research network: a 12-month evaluation of the Human Givens approach in primary care at a general medical practice". Psychology and psychotherapy. 84 (4): 389–405. PMID 22903882. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). This is a primary source, already used in the article. This suggests that none of the other sources in the article are peer review publications (?), however textbooks would also be ok...but they need to be independent. Agree with the analysis that none of the sources currently in the article meet WP:MEDRS... Lesion (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said last time, seems to be unimportant.I consider it diagnostic that all the books listed are self-published. I notice that many individual therapists' variant versions of therapy have articles on WP, and the distinctions can seem very small. (this is of course not a criticism of their therapies as such, but rather of their practice in giving them individual branding.) The distinction for notability is when other people not connected with the school of thought publish about them. Given the publication practices in the field, I think we'd want substantial coverage in a major book from a recognized publisher, or considerable discussion in multiple articles in first-rate journals. It is quite possible that other articles of this nature have problems also, but we're not considering them now. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 25 January 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 3 February 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) buff bills 7701 01:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burn It Down Tour

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

Redirect to either to either Jason Aldean or to Night Train (Jason Aldean album). I'm not sure which. Let me explain the whole story.

This article was created by Rquidone0717 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

For at least the past few months, he seems to have been the only user contributing from 69.141.238.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I originally suspected paid editing. But then I looked through his contributions and did some Google searching. It appears that he is a young contributor in his late teens. His interests seem to include escalators, trains, public transit, car repair, and country music. It's theoretically possible that he's a sophisticated paid editor who's forged an entire online identity, but I think this is very unlikely. I no longer suspect paid editing anymore.

The creator means well. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand notability. Plus, over time, he seems to have been almost completely unresponsive to user warnings posted on his talk page. I have noticed one exception: before Talk:Rewind Tour was speedily deleted, I saw him write "This page should not be speedily deleted because... (The Info is Correct)" there.

Callanecc rightly pointed out at AIV that complicated cases like this must be taken to AN/I instead. But, instead of further pursuing a block, I would rather first try to engage Rquidone0717 in conversation.

Dear Rquidone0717: WP:NCONCERT makes the following clear: "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms." But, it continues, if you can prove only that a concert tour happened, it is not notable. This seems to be the case here.

And so, Rquidone0717, I vote that we should redirect this tour's article to one of the targets mentioned above. After the community decides upon a redirect target, please merge all the content yourself. You can find it in the article history.

Rquidone, do you now understand that you should not create articles about concert tours by country musicians? Please leave a comment below.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking around, the tour seems to be getting good coverage. Enough to pass the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:22, 20 February 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.