Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 15

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 future of work is changing

The future of work is changing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined PROD. This is an

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per
  WP:NOTESSAY--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for the same reasons as above. This looks like an original essay with citations sprinkled throughout to give it legitimacy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Copyright violations.... Globalization paragraph copied from [1] Various sentences copied from [2]. What is not copied is original research. Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete multiple problems, pretty clear example of what wikipediia is
  WP:NOT.LM2000 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Essay. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu Biju

Sindhu Biju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. The only claim to notability is the Guinness record for hosting the longest radio talk show but then that's a case of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The subject is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sindhu Biju and Mithun Ramesh. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 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 speedy delete. Mkdw^talk 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelechi Onyenachi

Kelechi Onyenachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A high school junior who plays American football. Has only made four starts. A promotional piece. Unable to find any reliable refs about him. Prod was removed for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly a promotional piece. Stats aren't even all that impressive for a high school player at his peer level. I would support a
  WP:SPEEDY on this one per G-11 and possibly A-7.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete No indication of notability--fails NGRIDIRON and GNG. Puff piece.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:58, 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 delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alsamarketing

Alsamarketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable corporation. All sources are primary or simply on-line listings. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

• Delete - No references for it, no news notability; it simply doesn't meet basic
  WP:INHERITORG --CyberXRef^talk 04:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I am finding no substantial coverage of this firm. Fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I cannot find any sources that would help to support
  WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - company article lacking RS references to establish notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:55, 21 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) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City guard (Poland)

City guard (Poland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Redirect stub article and merge into Law enforcement in Poland article. Topic isn't significant enough to stand on it's own even in PL:WP. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No argument in favour of deletion is presented in the nomination. This is clearly a valid article subject. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Speedy keep per
  WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. James500 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No argument for deletion is given. Also it is an important topic. It needs work and considerable expansion, but is a valid topic. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. Given that there is a non-stub article on the subject in the Polish Wikipedia, it seems that this would be expandable into a fuller article -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 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) 01:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Grote Prjis van Zolder

1984 Grote Prjis van Zolder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Individual events of a third tier racing circuit fail

Note: This debate has been included in the |list of Belgium-related deletion discussions....William 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions....William 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

1985 Grote Prjis van Zolder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DELETE: Per nomination. I would individually note that it is odd that 1984 Grote Prjis van Zolder has an article when Grote Prjis van Zolder does not. What makes individual runnings of an event noteworthy if the event as a whole is not? --Falcadore (talk) 00:21, 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 delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asrar Alam

Asrar Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established. I can't find any sources that aren't by Asrar Alam himself. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Many books? zero cites. Brainy J says it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete The Urdu Wikipedia has a better entry. Though it doesn't have cites. His name translates as "Mystery" or "Secret" which is a common word complicating searches. To me it looks possibly notable, but the homepage has bombastic claims ("intellectual authority and leading Islamic scholar") which combined with lack of other sourcing makes it suspect. --
  GreenC 07:14, 20 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) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin (ship)

Chopin (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Questionable notability Ajh1492 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per long-standing convention that vessels of 100'/100 tons are likely to be notable enough to sustain independent articles. Sources independent of the subject are likely to exist in the Polish language. Mjroots (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. After Mjroots expansion, and note on convention, this seems much better. There are not many pl sources, but those articles [3][4] at TVN24 seems to satisfy GNG requirement for coverage by mainstream, reliable sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources refer to Fryderyk Chopin (ship). Suggest a search of Polish sources using "Chopin" and "Mikołajki" might prove fruitful. Chopin has a blue hull, Fryderyk Chopin has a white hull. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided evidencing notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Sobiepan (talk) 17:05, 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 no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bund für Arbeiterbildung

Bund für Arbeiterbildung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete and merge content into German Socialist Labour Party in Poland article Ajh1492 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No argument is presented as to why this article ought to be deleted. Notability is established in the article. Merging the article into the DSAP article is not helpful, as this org had separate structures (not a branch of the party as such). --Soman (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close - If the article is deleted, a merge to another article will be difficult for most Wikipedia editors, except administrators. Merge discussions can occur on article talk pages. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 15 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) 01:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCGS Ann Harvey

CCGS Ann Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of article does not appear to be notable. There are no references independent of the subject. Op47 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is independent coverage of this Canadian Coast Guard ship. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is long-standing precedent that commissioned vessels of military and coast guard forces are
  notable. Also, there is (as noted) coverage available; the nominator is reminded that there is no requirement, outside of BLP subjects, that references be included in an article, only that they exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep She's working, so the old girl has her notability. 'nough said. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This ship will have been covered in all of the annual editions of Jane's Fighting Ships since 1987, as well as the semi-regular US Naval Institute guide to world navies, so the claim that there are no independent references available is not correct, and suggests a failure to actually look for such references before nominating the article for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 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 no consensus. I suggest a merge discussion as a way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Katyń

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Article should be deleted and content merged into Katyn massacre article. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It's not so obvious, the article is rather about the

Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919–24) than about Katyń massacre.Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Procedural close - If the article is deleted, a merge to another article will be difficult for most Wikipedia editors, except administrators. Merge discussions can occur on article talk pages. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources that such propaganda strategy exists. --DonaldDuck (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources exist by Inessa Yazhborovska, eg. quoted here Катынское дело: на пути к правде / Яжборовская И. С. Вопросы истории, № 5, Май 2011, C. 22-35. BTW the article says that such strategy existed. In fact it is continued in Russia Историк Збигнев Карпусь: «Политика мешает научной работе» The original article started with words Soviet and Russian propaganda strategy, only recently rewritten to was a Soviet propaganda strategy. Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Anti-Katyn movie plans [5].Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with procedural close. Should be a merge discussion. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:21, 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rostyslav Dotsenko

Rostyslav Dotsenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

effectively unsourced BLP The Banner talk 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Article says he died in 2012. How is this a
  WP:BLP? Are you disputing the fact that he is dead? His page on Ukrainian Wikipedia has sources[6] - some confirm the date of death. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • oops, overlooked that. The Banner talk 11:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Request speedy close due to incorrect nomination as nominator. The Banner talk 11:24, 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.

Ethan Couch

Ethan Couch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions....William 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions....William 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put it to you the New York Times does not seem to agree:

But in recent days, the implications of being rich have set off an emotional, angry debate that has stretched far beyond the North Texas suburbs, after a juvenile court judge sentenced a 16-year-old from a well-off family to 10 years’ probation for killing four people in a drunken-driving crash. (from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/us/teenagers-sentence-in-fatal-drunken-driving-case-stirs-affluenza-debate.html?_r=1&) --

talk) 19:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is unquestionably notable and deserves mentioning due to widespread media coverage alone. Also, judging by the facts that you do not propose any alternative solution to preserving this information, you have the gall to use phrase such as "no long term significance" while you yourself create such irrelevant articles like Viasa Flight 897 and that you have userboxes such as "This user is a member of WikiProject US Courts and judges" on your user page makes me believe that you are proposing this article deletion NOT because your care about Wikipedia and its well-being BUT because you are pursuing some kind of personal agenda, most likely related to one of your personal friends/relatives or former co-workers. 98.116.9.131 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Ethan Couch case This case is indisputably notable, but I don't think there's any way to find enough biographical information on this guy without raising privacy concerns. The Ashley Todd mugging hoax comes to mind here. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to
  Ethan Couch case The case has recieved nationwide/international publicity and interest and easily meets notability requirements. Probably should be retitled though. Equilibrium007 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• REDIRECT to
  Ethan Crouch Case This does have long term consequences because of potential Case Law and could be considered notable and general societal impact. Tragicfame (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is COUCH, not CROUCH. Don't cover up for this quadruple murderer, keep the wiki page alive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.111.245 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to
  Ethan Couch Case This case does sound like it has a social impact. I don't see how Ethan Couch is notable apart from the case, and will refrain from commenting on him personally. Note that I came to the page from Crooked Timber, which linked to the current page. So a redirect is appropriate. (http://crookedtimber.org/2013/12/16/affluenza-as-liars-paradox/) DavidHobby (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Ethan Couch Case -- the case itself is more than notable in its perversion of basic legal principles. Simple deletion is not an option. Trigaranus (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I guess Redirect to the mentioned article is the best.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's too early to tell if this case will engender any sort of lasting change, and unless it does, it's just yet another example of wealth buying privilege. If it DOES cause change, we can always recreate it later. I appreciate people see deleting the page as "covering" for Ethan, but WP should not be used as a scarlet letter. - Drlight11 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This should not be deleted, regardless of outcome, because it's an interesting and notable case that spawned a (however short-lived) social controversy. Keeping it costs Wikipedia nothing while deleting it would make it that much harder to find out information about this. I was researching the topic and learned a lot from the Wikipedia page. -Arcataroger (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well referenced and passes notability. I found it when I wanted to learn more about Ethan Couch. --Nowa (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is the central figure in what has already become an important legal case, one that has injected a novel legal theory into real life. Brimba (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Ethan Couch Case; while I think the case itself will have its own legal and social repercussions and is certainly notable, I do not believe Ethan Couch himself is very notable. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This case isn't going away. Its close to the top of many front pages today. Having an article about both the case and one or more principals involved isn't problematic in my opinion. Tjc (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The facts of the case are needed to judge the validity of the sentence. People who hear about a teen getting probation for four deaths need to know the details to judge whether justice was served. Adallas (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I count on wikipedia to provide the facts of this incident. The article does not seem like a judgment. It is very factual and it helps me to quickly understand what's happening in this case. Please keep this page. We can easily judge for ourselves without wikipedia but at least wikipedia is there to present the facts. I hate trollish people in wikipedia who dispute and whine and complain about every wiki page/article/entry because they are superior Western intellectual beings. Wikipedia is more of a resource. It is not an encyclopedia per say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.190.11 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Since the suggested redirect target does not exist, and never has existed, I can only assume that the editors saying "redirect" actually mean "keep and rename".
  talk) 14:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, I think you all mean MOVE, which is not my !vote.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This person is an example of the use of
  WP:BLP1E (so shouldn't remain as a stand-alone article), particularly since the example there is someone that tried to assassinate an American President. I'm also concerned that he's a juvenile (NPR declined to even name him on the air), although I'm not aware whether that raises any policy issue for us.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You may have it backward on

John Hinckley, Jr. is provided as an example to show when this is the case.--Nowa (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep or redirect with history - My first instinct is that the "Ethan Couch case" is a key story regarding the affluenza defense. With that being said, at a minimum, the article should be redirected with history to Affluenza#As_a_legal_defense, if not "Ethan Couch case". --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the extent of sources available takes us well beyond any prospect of deletion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:43, 23 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) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eri Miyajima

Eri Miyajima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no evidence of notability. Neither the one source referenced in the article nor the external links does more than show that she has acted in numerous films, while giving no indication whether she had major roles. Google and other searches, whether for "Eri Miyajima" or for "宮島依里", produce exactly the kind of coverage one would expect for an actor with a steady flow of minor roles, not what one would expect of anyone with "significant roles in multiple notable films" (quoted from

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You misquoted
  WP:ENTERTAINER. It says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Kana is one of the five main characters in Haibane Renmei, so that is a notable acting role in a notable television series. A long career doing work on multiple notable shows. Dream Focus 09:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Misquoted"? OK, because the largest part of the article is headed "Filmography", I just quoted the part that said "films", and didn't bother to include "television shows, stage performances, or other productions", but I now see that I should have included "televison". However, that is really not the issue: the issue is whether he has had "significant roles in multiple ... productions", irrespective of whether they were films, television programmes, or whatever. Even if we assume that you are right in stating that the part in

talk) 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep Voice actress has had major roles in
  WP:ENTERTAINER. The real problem is the lack of reliable sources, which will only be available in Japanese print magazines and would not show up in a Google search. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Although sources are fairly hard to find, at least in English, she passes
  csdnew 02:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There are indeed several

primary sources for Wikipedia purposes." His patents do not establish notability. The remaining sources are equally unhelpful. Msnicki (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Delete The Google books search may indicate that he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics), particularly number 7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. He is mentioned in a great many books, but not substantially. So is there an impact or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet GNG and basically notable just for one thing. A redirect will do. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect to MetaCrawler seems very appropriate. Msnicki (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he's notable, even for just one thing, then he meets GNG. Sancho 17:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're confusing "notable" in the common sense of the word and wiki/GNG-notable, which means significant coverage about him personally rather than noted (in passing) for having done something notable. We do have guidelines like

WP:PSEUDO that in fact suggest not writing this kind of article when the subject has not received coverage focused on him. The federatedsearchblog.com interview for example only asked him about MetaCrawler, so it's not really helpful in fleshing out a biography. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:15, 24 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) 02:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK R&B Chart number-one singles of 2008

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Article was first flagged in August 2010 as no sources were referenced at all. I have cleared up the other pages and referenced these from the Official Charts archive [10] but it only goes back to October 10, 2009. I can't find any reliable source for the R&B charts predating this and so believe it is best that this article be deleted, as per

I am also nominating the related number-one albums page for similar reasons. Davidmichaelscott (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 20:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 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,

SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 15 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) 19:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce G. Blair

Bruce G. Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Non-notable commentator, and self-proclaimed expert. Article has no sources or substance, reads like a CV. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Not only self-proclaimed. NYT described him as one in 1991: "... experts like the Brookings Institution's Bruce Blair ..." Sancho 22:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: A quick search turns out that he is on the faculty at Princeton as of May, 2013 and is currently (Dec, 2013) on the U.S. Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board That could certainly be used to argue that he is qualified to be called an expert, and that he is viewed as one by these organizations. Thet0rp (talk) 17:01, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - needs more refs but he was frequently quoted in the year 2000 era. If we keep AfDing article because there aren't enough editors to beef them up, soon there won't be any wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he has been established as a notable authority on this subject cited in prominent publications, such as the NYT and Washington Post, and has testified before Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmars122 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that there are a lot of good people with lots of refs whose bios need updating. So many articles, so little time, even if you aren't obstructed. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a quick news search shows he has recently been quoted by many respectable news organization on nuclear weapons and security. User:shingkeeyu ([[User talk:shingkeeyu|Talk]) 10:30, 20 December 2013 (PST)

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) 02:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Iqrar Haroon

Agha Iqrar Haroon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly written article, more like a resume. But my concern is not writing style. It fails our

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 15 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. With no prejudice against renomination Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crowe & Dunlevy

Crowe & Dunlevy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Aside from having many changes of partnership name, I do not see anything notable here. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, as approving editor at AfC. Clearly meets
  WP:GNG. Plenty of GHits, GNews, GBooks, 45 hits on JSTOR. GregJackP Boomer! 04:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. Law firm articles can be hard to deal with because there's often a lot of inherent promotional content, and while larger firms get lots of mentions in the press, it's not always obvious how to distinguish "routine" coverage from "substantive" coverage. In this case, the firm is a bona fide heavyweight in Oklahoma, and (although the current article doesn't mention it) it's had some significant members: federal appeals judge Jerome Holmes, first black judge on the 10th Circuit, came from there [11] as did Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh [12][13][14]; the firm also got a lot of mention in connection with its representation of Kerr-McGee in the Karen Silkwood case [15][16][17]. I note a problem with the one of the article's references, a piece from the Journal Record (which is often a good source for information on Oklahoma business topics) entitled "189 Attorneys Have Served Crowe & Dunlevy", that is actually linked to an Oklahoman article instead; there's an different article about the firm by the same reporter on Questia [18] and apparently a bunch of others, but unfortunately my Questia subscription has expired. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 15 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Hernández Vázquez

Carlos Hernández Vázquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unverifiable & general notability missed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.75.233 (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I completed the IP nomination (rationale copied from talk page) and am neutral. Ansh666 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Weakly notable producer. - Altenmann >t 18:35, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 15 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groundswell group

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Conspiracy theory. "exposed" ... "conservative cabal" Does not appear to have lasting notability, MSNBC for example does not seem to have any other coverage other than the single article. (By their topics system) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC): Keep. This is not "conspiracy theory" in any way. That Groundswell exists is not in question--the members named it themselves, and they were clear in their goals and methods as well as in keeping the group secret. The group members included several major players in Washington DC. The article has numerous citations to legitimate sources Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:25, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Multiple independent significant coverage. - Altenmann >t 18:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you find any coverage outside of the brief news window cited in the article? See
    WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This seems to be a single, isolated piece of sensationalism. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:56, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article isn't the best written, and the sources are in a specific time-frame, but I think the amount of media coverage, in combination with the individuals who are a part of the group, make it notable. I know that notability is not inherited, but I think the main reason it got a decent amount of media coverage at the time was because of its members, and it seems to me a group of notable individuals getting together to shape policy, and that had substantial media coverage when its existence was found out, is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, as you acknowledge, the group does not receive notability simply from its members. It needs to have some sort of lasting "claim to fame" - as far as I can tell, this is not even a famous group of famous people. To give an example, if a group of celebrities had a party, and there was some reporting on that party, would the party be notable? No, because the party had no lasting significance. I believe this is a similar situation (with the added problems of casting negative aspersions on people.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources exist that gave it significant coverage in more than one outlet, and shows that it garnered significant media attention. As such, I feel that it meets the criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This isn't even close. The organization is covered in detail by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Meets both criteria of
  WP:NGO: national scope and verification by multiple third party RSs. BusterD (talk) 01:08, 26 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. Mkdw^talk 01:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Lights (radio station)

Christmas Lights (radio station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion or evidence of notability. Trivialist (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 14:28, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per
  WP:A7. No assertion of notability. Station has only been online for two weeks, how could it be? Ivanvector (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete sources are all primary or unreliable. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 21 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) 02:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actronics

Actronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only one example of third-party coverage. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems with the display of information. It is bad and all over the place but... it could be recovered but not at this state. I will try to keep this article afloat. I am neutral. Sipslice11 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 23:44, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Given the wide range of worldwide firms named "Actronics", this is better sought through a (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) but I am finding nothing more/better than the nominator did (and note that the article's claim to notability is not supported by that ref which describes the firm as just "one of Europe’s market leaders in..." its specialist field). I am not seeing encyclopaedic notability here: fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:32, 15 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Cantave

Vanessa Cantave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable & promotional. Career consists of being a chef at an apparently non-notable catering company, competing once on one reality cooking program, appearing as a guest of various programs, and supporting to an unspecified extent a very minor charity--support for which for which there is no documentation except herself. Promotional content consists of 50% of the article on her school career and 50% name-dropping -- apparently trying to get notability on the basis of the notable people she cooked for , in which case every caterer in manhattan and brooklyn is probably notable References are all PR, mostly in publications not reliable for notability, the best of which is a interview on Fox Business Network. or both. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is promotional and relies heavily on notability-by-association. JSFarman (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 November 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, KTC (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that this article lacks notability and does seem quite promotional. As such I move that, unless immediate alterations are made to show the notability of
  WP:BIO.  CKBrown1000 ^talk  21:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article needs help, but, in my eyes, she passes our general notability guidelines. I'm gonna cry a bit of
  SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - upon a review of sources presented above by
  WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, based on
  WP:BASIC. Sancho 17:29, 23 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 Convert to disambiguation page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bichir family

Bichir family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable family - the only Bichir family I can find discussed are a group of African fishes. All the members of the family have articles but that doesn't make the family notable in the way the Rockefeller family is (and I'm not convinced the father is notable).

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - An option may be to convert this to a disambiguation page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should be changed to Birchir (surname). Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 13 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a disambiguation page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:30, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of coats of arms

List of coats of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article should have been displaced with Category:Coats of arms years ago, the list is unnecessary. Arms Jones (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per
  WP:CLN proposer has offered no valid reason why this should be deleted. Why is the list unnecessary? Why is this better treated as a category? This article is valuable because a hierarchical list can convey information over and above categories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There is no other information in the list than a number of links. Some lists may be valuable, if the links are explained or grouped in certain way, but not this list: there is nothing more to this list than the links. Who is updating it? Some of the links are misspelled and go to redirects. A category is self-updating and hierarchy is better treated by subcategories. Lists like this was used in Wikipedia ten years ago, before categories were built out. Arms Jones (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list has a messy layout, like noone has given it any real thought. The hierarchy of the list is unclear, sometimes cities come directly under countries, other times under subdivisions. In some cases links are placed in the wrong place in the hierarchy, as compared to where a city is acctually situated. Many coats of arms which should be at least mentioned in a list like this, are not there. Some links doesn't go to articles but just to file images, which doesn't explain anything to the reader; if you should just show images, it is better to show them in a gallery together with other images. Many links are red. Very few articles link to this list, in spite of the fact it has been around for years. This list shows none of the advantages of lists stated in
    WP:CLN but many of the disadvantages. Colapeninsula, in what way is this list better than Category:Coats of arms? Arms Jones (talk) 15:43, 10 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but purge. National and provincial coat of arms should certainly be in, but those for towns should be purged. Coats of arms of monarchs and (where siginificantly different) heirs, but those for other members of the royal family should be purged, as should those for noble families: rename to National and provincial coats of arms, possibly splitting out the royal ones, but they are for the head of state. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 15 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) 02:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SWiK

SWiK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

First,

As from the previous nomination for deletion, the O'Reilly Radar no longer exists. This is ridiculous, you shouldn't need to go to the ends of the earth the find the little source left as a refernce, it's just not notable enough to stay. CyberXRef^talk 02:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The 2008 AfD concluded without consensus, on the basis of a smattering of coverage of potentially interesting new resources 3 years previously. That coverage was hardly more than just note-of-existence, and the product's lack of progress / disappearance since then verifies that this does not meet
  WP:NWEB notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 15 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.

Feathercoin

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 spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Feathercoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Last discussion resulted in a no consensus. Almost all sources (minus the Tech Cocktail) are either technical documentation, blogs, or forum posts. Article is in a much better shape than last time, but I believe that it isn't enough to pave through. [citation needed] 02:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There seems to be quite a bit of coverage of this in somewhat diverse publications, such as San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, and The Economic Times, for example, along with several noted in the original AfD. I'm surprised that discussion was determined to be a no consensus result, it seemed like the delete arguments were all addressed when several sources were provided. Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources provided by Ivanvector above are only trivial mentions, and not the significant coverage that is required to demonstrate notability. The same is true of the sources provided in the last Afd. My searching isn't turning up anything better. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]