Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 12

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

No reliable sources, none added since March 2013. 78.73.162.169 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nomination and am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article, UFOs supposedly attacked people with radiation beams on an island in Brazil. There are no objective sources available to show notability of these
extraordinary claims. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I have the same concerns as LuckyLouie. About.com is pretty much the most reliable source listed, and that's kind of sad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails
WP:RS, please also refer to an associated article Operação Prato which shares the same problems. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to UFO sightings in Brazil. Probably some reliable sources can be found. --Carioca (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would you care to point out any you have found? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali Malik

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

May still fail our general notability guidelines. I struggled to find multiple reliable sources, but perhaps in Urdu.

SarahStierch (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Highly unpopular. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough, we do not usually accept this as a criterion for deletion. We do still, after all, have an article on Adolf Hitler! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decision changed, wasn't aware about his parliamentary position. So Keep, and Necrothesp, Hitler is popular though. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining popular? Saying "Highly unpopular" implies the gentleman in question is highly unpopular, which most certainly applies to Hitler (in most of the world, at least). Do you mean the article doesn't have many viewers? That's certainly not a criterion for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, when i said "popular" it meant for the amount of viewers instead. Sorry Necrothesp, will explain next time. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, but appears to meet the criteria of
WP:POLITICIAN as he has served as a member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Necrothesp. He meets
WP:POLITICIAN by having been an elected member of the Punjab assembly. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - He is verifiably a member of the
WP:POLITICIAN. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 17 December 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. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Alberta Yoga Teacher Training College

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

I originally believed that The Alberta Yoga teacher training college wasn't notable, so I tagged it with a CSD.

talk) 22:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Seems like a good yoga school but I can't find any indication of coverage in secondary sources like books, newspapers or magazines which means it fails
WP:ORG.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roldán+Berengué, arqts.

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

This is irredeemably spammy: it's a resume with a bunch of URLs linking to projects. I have little doubt that the company and/or the individual people are likely notable, but this article in its current form is completely unacceptable. I would have deleted it summarily, but in this forum perhaps someone can use some of the info to make real articles out of it. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree the article is a mess with many issues. So many its hard to know where to start. For example there are two BLP's embedded in the article that either need to be spun off or deleted as non-notable. If all the awards listed are real, this might be a notable organization. It would take some research to find out one way or the other.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Squeezing together a pair of unsourced BLP articles does not make the result any more notable or better-sourced. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 22 December 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. --BDD (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic Institute of Canada

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

No reliable sources found to show that this is not just a castle in the air or a hoax. The institute is not listed in Robert K. Headland's A Chronology of Antarctic Exploration, neither are the research stations recently added (and removed by me) to the article Research stations in Antarctica. Information about the founder, Austin Mardon, can be found here. 4ing (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

talk to me What did he do now? 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Delete in the absence of reliable sources verifying the information given. It appears that the institute is run by Austin Mardon who created the article, and he is known in Canada for his promotion of the rights of those with disabilities. He has received the Order of Canada for this work, and the citation is helpful in confirming this. Neither Dr Mardon nor the institute are mentioned at the Canadian Polar Commission website. --AJHingston (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 18001–19000. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18027 Gokcay

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

I don't think it has any notability, and upon Googling it...well, I couldn't find much. Any comments appreciated, of course. GRUcrule (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NASTRO. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
t • c) 18:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect I can't find any independent sources except dictionary listings.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InterWorks, Inc.

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

Promotional article on consulting firm, with minor or local awards. 1999th "fastest growing" is not significant notability DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

talk to me What did he do now? 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Delete- Almost zero reliable secondary sources for this 85 employee, $2 million dollar a year, small business.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created by sock of

_berate 15:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Clifford Aboagye

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article two sources show no evidence of notability. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sufficient notability has not been demonstrated. C 679 17:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definate Keep –
WP:NFOOTBALL. Professor. Ralf Hiltz (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectuals and Society

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

No evidence that the book meets

WP:NBOOKS. All sources in the article are used to simply source what the book is about. No information about reviews. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Keep. This is a notable book. The first pages of Google reveal substantive commentaries in
Foreign Policy (with the entertaining title "Intellectual says really stupid thing to prove point about intellectuals: film at 11") [7], plus one from National Review that is mentioned by others but seems to have vanished from the web. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

talk to me What did he do now? 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Keep per Arxiloxos' multiple book review finds. The American Spectator, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and Foreign Policy are all reliable sources (the others may be, too, but I don't know them) and the sources' articles go in depth about the book itself. Thus the book seems to satisfy criterion 1 of
WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable book and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the sources mentioned above and the book sources that I linked in the previous AfD. The article text iself is poor, but that is a matter of improvement not deletion. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been found but no one has bothered to add them to the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment exactly the same, can't get the book's page deleted the next best thing is to add every negative review of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_9 — Preceding

- That may be true, but is not a good reason for deleting the article.
  talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

unsigned comment added by Estermackayy (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the keep votes above.
talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David D.A. Doman

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

May fail our general notability guidelines. I struggled to find multiple reliable secondary sources for the subject. Perhaps others can provide different insight and knowledge about the subject.

SarahStierch (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

talk to me What did he do now? 17:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I cannot find anything in Google News or Google Books or NewsLibrary.com. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable or significant in anyway.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 19 December 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. L Faraone 07:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Movies: Bonus CD

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

Non-notable soundtrack album given away free with DVD purchase. No independent reliable sources indicate that this CD is notable separately from the series. Fails

WP:NOTINHERITED. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Merge Even though the subject isn't notibal for its own article I still think that is is notibal enough that it should be merged with the article Home Movies (TV series). --Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this a notable album because Brendon Small is a notable musician. If this page does get deleted I'll have no choice but to merge it with the Home Movies season 4 page. But considering how long the track listing is, I feel it's better to just give the album it's own page. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the musician is not inherited by the album. The album itself needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in terms of a stand alone article. More details can be found at

WP:NALBUM. Mkdw ^talk 02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A bonus CD doesn't require an article. A mention on the artist's page should suffice without needing to merge the entire track list. --20:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete as not separately notable --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't found anything that suggests this is a suitable subpage and it does not have the RS and coverage for its own standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkdw ^talk 04:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotline_Communications

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

I have been talking with the creator of the page that suggested an AfD instead of proposing it for deletion. In my opinion, this article has notability issues. The references given come from non notable websites. I have been looking on Google but didn't find anything really notable. Puda (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have also done a google search and found no proof of notability of the topic.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a fairly popular P2P file sharing system on the Mac in the 90s. Hotline was the subject of two articles at Salon.com [9], [10] and a 2013 retrospective article at Macworld [11]. These are reliable sources and in depth. In addition, there is a paragraph at MaximumPC. An in depth blog (probably not reliable) is at FileShareFreak. These AngelList and docshut links by one of the founders of Hotline points to other possible reliable sources, but I haven't hunted them down. There appear to be multiple in depth independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability per
WP:GNG. The article could use some inline citations, but has no insurmountable problems. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage identified by Mark viking is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, the sources found by Mark viking are adequate. It can take some work to find sources to verify details about older software, but this software was important enough that we should keep digging for better sources instead of deleting the article. I had a hunch that Wired probably covered it, and I searched it and found these articles: "Street Cred: Hot Connection" (1997), "Hotline Reinvents the BBS" (1998), "Still Plenty of Music Out There" (2001). I also found some descriptions of Hotline Connect in papers like this one. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources provided by Dreamyshade and Mark viking, a quick check on Google Books found this, a page from the book Maximum Security discussing Hotline. The legal case involving Hinkley, the creator of Hotline, is also mentioned in Australian Intellectual Property Law, a textbook on the subject, as well as in McCallum's Top Workplace Relations Cases, a casebook on employment law. At best, one might argue that the subject of the legal case is distinct from the subject of the software, and that one might be a coatrack for the other. But I think that there's definitely enough sources to present a useful little article on the history of this software. It does need a bit of a tidy up though. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 18 December 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. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittana

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

WP: FANCRUFT Admiral Caius (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Delete. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Trivial details, such as cutesy names for soap opera romances, probably don't even belong in the main article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with NinjaRobot this article dosn't need to be here if it just supplies trivial details.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons already supplied by NinjaRobotPirate. GRUcrule (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 December 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. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Photonics

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

Non-notable company? Difficult to tell given state of article. Interesting article history - it was created by someone dumping refs on a page and someone else turning them into text (and that person had nominated the page for speedy). Emeraude (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to be a startup company that managed to do well enough to be bought out. But it did not attract the significant coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not meet
WP:ORG as secondary source coverage consists of insignificant mentions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 19 December 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. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Powers(Writer & Comedian)

If you came here because of Powers' Twitter or Facebook page, 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

csp

|username}}.

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

Though I wish him all the best, Mr Powers does not currently meet the requirements of

WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Comment I'd really like to encourage that anyone coming on here due to Powers' posts on Facebook or Twitter posts look through our policies for notability and read through the delete comments posted above. Any and all people on Wikipedia must pass our notability guidelines. The existence of other articles that do not pass notability guidelines only means that they haven't been caught and deleted yet. The deletion of this article (if it happens) will be based upon coverage in reliable sources and does not reflect on the merits or ability of Powers, just on how much coverage he has received in reliable sources. Existing is not notability and I'd also like to emphasize that personal attacks or disparaging remarks on Wikipedia editors will not save the article and will only ensure that your arguments towards inclusion will likely be disregarded. Any arguments that fall along the lines of "
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable individual. Likely autobiography that reads like a resume. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You know the article is usually deletion worthy when the disambiguation in the title is that botched. Non-notable individual, fails
WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Powers (Writer & Comedian) had significant roles in films and has a large fan base. He has more than 12,000 followers on Twitters and his comedy and writings are appreciated. So, his page should not be deleted. Botching up his disambiguation is the issue with the editor who created the page not of John's. Articles on much less popular persons are on Wikipedia. John deserves a page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarada14 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A person can have a lot of Twitter followers, but that isn't how we judge a large fan base. We judge the fan base by how much coverage they have received. For an example of what type of a fanbase you'd need to have this person pass notability guidelines, take a look at the fanbase for say, Rocky Horror Picture Show or My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I'll be honest- we've had a lot of people with a larger fanbase than Powers' fail notability guidelines, as can be seen with Goddess Bunny. She's even had a documentary filmed about her, yet she has never gained the coverage necessary to gain an article. As far as other people having articles that are less popular,
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I guess what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that you can say that someone passes all of the notability guidelines, but you have to prove it via reliable sources that pass Wikipedia's guidelines. IMDb is not a reliable source. The amount of Twitter followers isn't a RS either. A reliable source would be something such as a news article about him in a place that isn't affiliated with Powers.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. The problem is that despite the claims of notability, Powers hasn't actually received any coverage to show that he's really all that notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to stress Wikipedia's guidelines, which are very strict. Someone can be popular enough but never gain notability per our guidelines. Another person I want to hold up as an example of failing notability guidelines would be Harry Partridge. He has just over half a million followers on YouTube, 28,000 followers on Twitter, and more on other social media sites. He's animated for BBC... yet has never passed notability guidelines for his own article. That's how strict notability guidelines are on Wikipedia.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm all in favor for adding more and more individuals on the Wikipedia database, but not even 1 source is cited for such a long text. There is no way this can be accepted as a reliable article. --Tco03displays (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have found and added two third party references to the article, which I believe warrant consideration for keeping the biography. --Rvstoltz (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PR Web is a press release service so the content you read there about John Powers is written and paid for John Powers. It's most definitely not a third-party source. Pichpich (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you have to do to get a wikipage - if existing sources are not enough? It really seems as though alot of effort & attention is going towards denying this actor a page. Why? The misinformation I read daily on various Wikipedia entries is staggering - Tokyogirl79 is coming across as a scorned ex-girlfriend rather than a impartial 'editor'- I would like verification she is NOT. I'm a registered user - but my user id is not working for some reason. Signed, Steve Benjamin-nyc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.196.176 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think TokyoGirl79 already explained it well, but I can reiterate it more bluntly: until

WP:42, which is an informal summation. By the way, personal attacks will get you nowhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Oh wow. I can verify that I'm not an ex-girlfriend of Powers. I'd actually never heard of him before this point in time.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I have found another third party reference (as has been requested) which makes reference to Mr. Powers. --Rvstoltz (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The latest sources that you added to the article seem legit, but I've got bad news. What you've got now is a person
  famous for a single event. At best, this is worthy of a mention on the Citi Bike article, not a reason to keep this article. In my opinion, those articles are about the event, not the person. A review of his work, retrospective on his career, or interview with him would be better. If you can find those, then I'll change my vote. Web sites that employ him do not count. They're paid to say nice things about him. It has to be an independent source, like a magazine or newspaper. PR doesn't count, either. That's written by him or his representatives. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Do Not Delete. I have followed Mr. Powers' blog for some time now and have heard commentary on RUFKM. Additionally, I caught one of his most recent performances in Long Island. It may be time to consider revising your standards for current artists. BHBlair (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)— BHBlair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete. I live in NYC and his CitiBike article was a very big deal. He touched on privacy issues and the nanny-state that New York City is becoming. He also had a feud with Al Roker. He may not be Dane Cook, but he is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.157.202 (talk)

It all boils down to coverage. Now the thing about feuds is that you'd have to show that Powers has had a lot of coverage about the feud. I couldn't really find anything to show that this feud is really notable. I'm not saying that it didn't exist, just that nobody really gave it any attention. Now when it comes to someone being involved with someone that is notable in any way, that notability is
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I have added two third party interviews as reference for further consideration to keep this bio . --Rvstoltz (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources is linked to Powers' own page, which has a bit of an issue with copyvio. The thing about radio shows is that those are sometimes dubious as sources because of several reasons: people argue that interviews qualify as primary sources (which I don't necessarily agree with), that the person isn't covered in-depth (something I also don't always agree with), or that they're really not the focus of the spot and have been brought in to commentate on another topic (one of the most common arguments). There are other arguments that people use, such as the tone of the spot interfering with how we'd consider the source (casual versus semi-serious interview)- it's pretty hard to show a radio show as a RS, which is why so many people consider them to be so depreciated. I'd be willing to argue for this as a potentially reliable source, although I will note that Powers doesn't seem to be the actual focus of the interview as a whole. The other source wouldn't really be a reliable source to show notability. Most podcasts don't count towards notability regardless of how popular they might be. Now one thing to think about: the page asserts the following: "John has won an Emmy for his graphic design work." Is this Emmy for Powers and can you back this up with a reliable source such as the Emmy website? Was it a group award or a single award? If it's a group award for a larger project then it might be argued that his name would redirect to whatever the project was, but it's a step in the right direction.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I mean, essentially this is the sort of thing that should be what you're trying to find sources about and put on the page as opposed to his comedic career, which hasn't really gained that much attention in the long run. Emmy wins can save articles, but again- you'd have to show proof that he won the award as opposed to the award being given to an overall company he worked for.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Who is this guy? He got into a little argument with Al Roker, He has a blog, he wrote an article about Citibike, and he is an MC at a comedy club, and he is a comedian. uhm, HELLO? Delusional!!! You're not famous! Maybe you will become famous but fighting to keep an inorganic Wikipedia page alive is not the way it will happen. Get over it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SlocumSliders (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 December 2013‎— SlocumSliders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please be more neutral when you phrase your arguments, as this comes across as an attack against Powers rather than a NPOV AfD rationale.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Who determines which argument has the most merit? TokyoGirl and Ninja are both responding to other users which is considered "disruptive." It seems like this guy has significant press coverage and has had an interview on TV. That's notable right? If people will use Wikipedia to gather info on the comedian behind the CitiBike hoax and the parody songs, this page should exist. Also, it is insulting to tell any artist that their work is not notable so it is understandable that this guy would rally support from social media. The fact that his fans are speaking up is a testament to his legitimacy in the landscape of public personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.30.194 (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments that have the most merits are the ones that follow the guidelines for notability per
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I have heard of this guy. He is pretty big in NYC. Not sure why you don't think he's notable. The NYC comedy scene and entertainment scene all know him. John Powers has been on the scene of comedy for 10 plus years in New York and Florida, He's an Emmy Award winner for his work at ESPN, an accomplished singer song writer, guitarist, you want him on your wall you need him on your wall. He's the real deal and I totally promote and stand up for him. Pcareccia (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)— Pcareccia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Moving this here from the other page, as it won't be seen there. In any case, please find a reliable source that proves that he got the Emmy. I tried finding it and all I can find are
(｡◕‿◕｡) 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

He may or may not be notable. He just hasn't been shown to be notable. There might be 10,000 articles about him in the Gothamist, he might have kissed 50,000 babies, and he might be the next
WP:CRYSTAL is fairly clear about the future). Neonchameleon (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I would look into his twitter "following". A guy that would try to put his résumé on here would certainly buy some followers. In 30 seconds I found out 70% of his 12k are fake. He's not notable. Case close. LarryDay22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) — LarryDay22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete. Fake twitter followers come with notoriety. This article in Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2012/08/27/celebrities-with-the-most-allegedly-fake-twitter-followers/) shows that President Obama and Kim Kardashian have nearly the same ratio of fake to real followers. Bots gravitate toward celebrities to spam other users. Also, the interview on the Tim Brando Show is a reputable source and they talked about a comedy show he did in Shreveport, proving he is not just a New York local wanna-be. Keep this article. FctChckR (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)FctChckR[reply]

Delete. If you're not making a living as a standup comedian, you don't deserve to be credited as one on Wikipedia. Anyone can do standup and call themselves a comedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.157.87 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah there. This is not a place for attacks against Powers. How much one makes as a comedian does not qualify or disqualify their ability to call themselves as such. The amount of money someone makes also doesn't equate to notability- someone can be dirt poor and still be considered notable as long as they have coverage. Please refrain from making deletion arguments that come across as personal attacks. AfD arguments should fall within the guidelines for notability, as seen in arguments such as the one below by
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I cannot find a sufficient number of RSes to confirm the subject meets notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After doing some research on him, this subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines per above. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:31, 12 December 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, -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment On the face of things, the subject appears non-notable (and this may well be the ultimate consensus with reference to policies). However, I found a few other points to note, so will do so below shortly. Thanks in anticipation of your patience. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous incarnations of this article were:

John J. Powers (actor, comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John J. Powers (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A version also still exists at User:Jkinzler777/John J. Powers (actor, comedian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
We have at least one prior deletion discussion at
CSD#G4
version of that.
I found a single possibly relevant reference.[12] Other potential references are out there, but the popularity of the name complicates the search process.

This is probably still looking like delete but I think it warrants further time/discussion in order consider this collective new information. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevj: that link is clearly unrelated to the subject and was written in 1987. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for carelessly missing the 1987 date. However, I still feel that the other AfD and pervious article incarnations are worth noting. If consensus is evident before the 7 days are up then there's no reason why this can't be closed before then. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sufficient sources to provide evidence of notability, though I may change my mind if he's the same John J Powers who wrote Disneyland und Deutschland about Hitler's meeting with Walt Disney[13]; that play (despite consensus about its awfulness) has got more press than this comedian. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With fans as dedicated as these, it won't be long before Mr. Powers generates enough press in reliable sources to pass GNG but for now after looking through this discussion and the sources I can't say that's the case now. It seems 95% of the keep arguments fall into
Arguments to Avoid. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Two of the "references" aren';t even references ( links to a youtube video and a podcast) and the other two are just about the hoax he perpetrated. North8000 (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen JaiHind

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

Article is very poorly written, doesn't exactly pass WP:N, and the only two sources are Twitter and Facebook.

_{Dear Celestia...} 13:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Delete this article has no 3rd party sources to prove notability and the article itself is written in a very promotional way.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:41, 12 December 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. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Serio

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

Article about a drumer who IMO fails to have notability. It was created in 2008 by someone who has no other Wikipedia edits. The article claims that Serio "has performed with artists like...." but gives no detail or references. His recorded work, according to the article, consists of self-released albums and session work for no one sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. Article was tagged for speedy deletion on 7 June 2008 but this was declined less than three hours later with the comment "I don't think this qualifies for speedy delete. Take it to afd, if you must." So, here it is. Emeraude (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has no 3rd party sources to back up the clames of notability. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does have one reference which is an album review. A single album review in one magazine is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - However, he does have some mention in third party sources and may meet the notability threshold in future.
- Modern Drummer
- Jazz Discography
- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (PA) - December 30, 2007, CD reviews: Ken Serio's 'Moment' is serious jazz-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 19 December 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. --BDD (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramendra Nath

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

No scholarly mention of this person, nor any national level of prominence, even though this page is over 4-5 year old, it has not even thousand of search results(that refers to this specific person), other names such as "ramendra nath saha" or "ramendra nath nandi" being more popular.. And even the first page(of google search) is flooded with the profiles of those "Ramendra nath" that have to do nothing with this person. So not even popular, but obvious self-promotion. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

talk to me What did he do now? 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

talk to me What did he do now? 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply