Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 July	11 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to

Florida gubernatorial election, 2010#No party affiliation. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Daniel Imperato

)

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

He fails

notability threshold. Most of the coverage about him is referential, not significant. The only significant coverage he appears to have is that related to his alleged fraud activity, which does not seem notable in itself. Article was deleted once and another Afd ended in No consensus. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage other than the fraud allegations. A lot of the sources are are iffy in terms of reliability as well.--Dwc89 (talk) 15:00, 11 Julyi 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to
WP:POLITICIAN, and thus does not merit a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree that is an appropriate page for redirect.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His unique political ideology and financial career are enough to establish notability. Academic Challenger (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received the requisite press coverage to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. As AC notes above, his unique views have garnered press attention for his campaigns. Coverage of the SEC suit against him solidifies his notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsuccessful candidate for the nomination of a minor party is not notable. In this case, it's difficult to see him as a genuine candidate at all. The only conceivable thing that is noteworthy is the essentially zero support that he had even within his party. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A minor party"? Did you even read the article? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the statement, "an unsuccessful candidate for the nomination of a minor party is not notable", I guess you should nominate Mike Gravel, Russell Means, Richard Lamm, Alan Keyes, etc. for deletion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JayJasper and
WP:POLITICIAN (bottom paragraph). I'm not seeing significant coverage of his "unique political ideology and financial career". I'm just seeing a small handful of local articles giving routine campaign press, several dead links and non-RS citations, numerous cites that merely mention Imperato in passing, and just a few (I think only two) articles on the fraud allegations. Sorry, but that dosen't quite cut it. What coverage he does have justifies a redirect, however.--Rollins83 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per JayJasper. I also am not finding that he passes
WP:BIO. ANYONE who runs for any elected office in the US is bound to get some press coverage, therefore the higher standard of WP:POLITICIAN should be met in most cases. This is one of those where redirecting to the appropriate election article is correct, IMHO of course. Wine Guy~Talk 00:08, 16 July 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.

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) 23:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Chiacchio

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

This is a classic example of how to whip up what appears to be a substantial article for a local politician that does absolutely nothing to establish notability. The coverage is all trivial election details, local political intrigues and statistical details from hometown newspapers and governmental websites. Some of the material here could be added to the article for Moorestown. Alansohn (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article should be kept. It has useful information about the Deputy Mayor of a town, all citations are from actual news outlets and not from opinion or political sites, and it offers useful educational information about a local public figure.DilbertReality (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Zero significant coverage except in something called the Moorestown Patch. The New York Times it ain't. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously, as the individual who created the page, I am a strong believer that it should be kept. First, to address some of the above, I thought it would be extremely useful for the members of our Town Council to have pages that people can learn more about their local government from. I therefore spent time searching for articles and information about our local officials. In response to Clarityfiend, The Moorestown Patch is a hyper-local news source, but it is a legitimate media company with full-time editors and reporters (See Patch Media to learn more about the Patch Media corporation). I thought Wikipedia existed so that individuals could use it as a resource to learn - and I wanted folks in Moorestown and other towns to be able to learn more information on their elected officials, including the Deputy Mayor (who will likely be Mayor in rotation soon). RedAlertMoorestown(talk) 14:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This page offers information in one location about a good portion of both Chris Chiacchio's life and political history. It certainly offers more than most New Jersey legislator pages, and offers more than you find in the pages for some larger city Deputy Mayors! I would, however, argue that the page can be made stronger by including more information about the work he has done during his time on Township Council. Rather than delete the page, I recommend that work be done to make it a better page. Either way, it should certainly be kept as he is a public figure and the entry already does have quite a bit about him, his background, and his political life. And yes, the Patch is a legitimate news source. MoorestownGOP (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)— MoorestownGOP (talk[reply]

Keep Contains proper citations, he has been covered in numerous articles, and is an elected official. I believe this is useful to keep for the mission of Wikipedia. I do agree that it could be made stronger in certain ways, but to say that this page is covered somebody with "no notoriety" is inaccurate. My vote is to keep but improve where possible. TravisWoods (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)— TravisWoods (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete citations have to be for something significant. Otherwise, they amount to just PR. An elaborate article for deputy mayor of a small municipality (population 20,000) is essentially either promotionalism or a misunderstood idea of what an encyclopedia is for. "Elected official" is a very loose terms, if applied to this position. I have sometime been asked, why I tend to be deletionist for local people and events, and it's exactly because accepting a position like this as notable is a free pass for this sort of promotionalism or local boosterism. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Delete per nom. and DGG.--Rollins83 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that TravisWoods and DilbertReality are spot on. I believe that the elitist view that a local politician is not notable is by no means grounds for deletion. My vote is to keep but make the page better. RMadden2 ( talk ) 10:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)— RMadden2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I'm sorry to those of you who believe that the deputy mayor of a town of 20k is notable, but Wikipedia has notability guidelines. In this case the applicable guideline can be found at

WP:POLITICIAN. Please note #2 "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This person is neither major, nor has the press coverage been significant, (i.e. "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.") -Wine Guy~Talk 00:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong Keep After reviewing the notability guidelines, I believe that the Deputy Mayor does in fact meet the criteria for notability as someone who has received press coverage from Patch Media, the South Jersey Sun, South Jersey Magazine, SJ Magazine, and the Burlington County Times. Being named a top lawyer for his region, elected to local government, and serving as Deputy Mayor under the first female Mayor of a town absolutely makes him notable, and the article should be left alone. -- ChoirVoice(talk) 12:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)— ChoirVoice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Black Kite (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sarvis

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

He fails

Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

- Nomination Withdrawn. Seeing how drawn-out this discussion has become, with no clear consensus being formulated, and seeing the increasing amount of coverage Sarvis is getting, I've decided to withdraw the nomination. Will possibly re-assess at a futute date, after the election.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mr. Sarvis is an official candidate for Governor, according to Virginia's State Board of Elections. He is not some weirdo fringe candidate, but an official, qualified, legitimate candidate, even if he is a little different from the more mainstream candidates. I think that it is only fair to keep the Sarvis Wikipage and improve on it as more on him comes out. Emeraldgirl (talk)

Keep: Robert Sarvis is a notable person in the Libertarian Party. As the article notes, he is only the 4th minor party candidate to be on the ballot in 40 years. I see no issues with the citations. Some are from libertarian-leaning sources, but I don't think it has excessive bias. PrairieKid (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources and the article being almost wholly selfreferenced. May prove to be premature as the election progresses, but we shall see... Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:POLOUTCOMES). Enos733 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I believe this article,
notability threshold because, as mentioned previously, he is the 4th minor party candidate to obtain ballot access in his state in the last 40 years. At this stage in the election cycle, I think a redirect or deletion is disingenuous; however, deletion or a redirection may be suitable after the election. I am a contributor to this article. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 08:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Enos. I also point out that this article may violate
famous for being related to someone. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I personally support the inclusion of major party candidates for an office of national importance (including governor of a state), though this has been rejected several times as a general consensus. I would not extend it to a losing candidate for office in a state legislature as he was in 2011. I have a very broad view of political notability , but that's way too far to be sensible. I would also not extend it to a minor party candidate in the US two party system, unless there is a strong showing of national level notability. There is not here. This illustrates the problem with the GNG; the reliance upon sourcing throws the decision open to the interpretation of substantial and independent coverage, and that's always open to interpretation, and to PR efforts in behalf of someone. A reliance upon determinable intrinsic factors with the GNG as a safety provision for exceptional circumstances makes more sense to me, and the more I see articlea like this the more strongly I feel it. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Enos and Bearian. A case of
WP:GNG.--Rollins83 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as above, fails to meet
WP:Politician. Depending on how much coverage (if any) he gets, I don't see why the article couldn't be created again. Tiller54 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Sarvis is now polling above 5% in Virginia's gubernatorial election: Public Policy Polling. I am a contributor to this article. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 00:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polling at 5% is a criteria for inclusion in the infobox, not a criteria for meeting the

WP:Politician. Tiller54 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Making additional comments is fine, but please don't !vote more than once. Thanks.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's some good coverage in reliable sources following Reallibertyforall's improvements. If the election were over, I might lean towards redirecting, but as such, it's likely coverage will continue. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should be kept as he has polled above 5% in two consecutive polls, and the commentary is that his candidacy could easily result in the eventual winner only receiving a plurality several percentage points below 50% due to the relatively substantial number of people feeling disapproval with both major party candidates. - S201676 (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Polling over 5% in two consecutive polls is not a criteria for GNG (third party candidates often perform far worse in actual elections than they do in polls). Also, those are the only two polls conducted that even bothered to include his name. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Polling above the 5% threshold is commonly used for notoriety. Also, Sarvis has only been an official candidate since June 26, 2013, so in less than a month, he has been included in multiple polls. Polling above 5% in less than a month is significant for a third party candidate. I am a contributor to this article. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 21:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has some coverage as a third party candidate, but not enough for GNG IMHO, and he fails
WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect. I don't see any justification for ignoring the clear outcome of
WP:POLITICIAN in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Sarvis has coverage from reliable sources, such as: Fox 5 DC, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Style Weekly, Charlottesville Newsplex, and is mentioned in other sources, such as: The Washington Times, The Roanoke Times, Politico, among other sources as listed in the page's footnotes. I am a contributor to this article. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 08:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is admittedly a close one, but I do see enough coverage cited in the article, and found more with Google. The
WP:POLITICIAN #3, IMHO. -Wine Guy~Talk 18:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Libertarian candidate recognized by the SBE. There are more than enough credible sources cited in the article.--111.249.193.131 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 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 (effectively withdrawn). --BDD (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Wolfe

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

A sportscaster, nothing notable. It's only source is a dead link. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a live one. No comment on notability, however.
T
21:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to disagree with you on him not being notable. Ari Wolfe has called games for
  NBC Sports Network, meaning he has 4 major networks to his credit (NFL Network, CBS Sports Network, NBC Sports Network, & ESPN). If you consider that BTN is owned by FOX, and you look at the fact that Wolfe also calls games for them, then you see that Wolfe has called sports for every major sports provider in the US. Not many people can say that. He was one of the voices of ESPN's Women's Tournament first round coverage. He is the voice of Olympic table tennis on NBC (as noted here) and also calls women's ice hockey, canoeing, and slalom for Universal Sports. He has also called called for Mtn. (as noted here) and is the main voice of the Mountain West Digital Network. He is the play-by-play voice of Minnesota Vikings pre-season games (as noted here) and was the host of Louisville Cardinals football and basketball talk shows (as noted here). Having 5 major networks and 2 major teams behind him qualifies him for notability. And in case you didn't notice, I just provided 5 additional references that can be used. The page merely needs to be edited, not deleted. Bigddan11 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, I can respect your opinions. I understand him working for the NFL Network and I can suggest that you would improve the article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Bigdan11, I do believe that if you work for five networks such as the CBS Sports Network, Big Ten Network, and other networks may qualify for notability. You should remember on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbie Bullough when you disagreed with DGG; you also stated that BYU TV is considered a national television network. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though that article was deleted, there was some question whether the network range of BYU on systems like DirecTV might conceivably be sufficient for it to be a national network. I expressed the view that an announcer for a major network might be notable, and a prominent enough announcer I think would be. Whether this particular individual is prominent enough is something I do not consider myself qualified to determine. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big difference between Ari Wolfe and Robbie Bullough comes in the number of stations he has been on and the types of networks he has been on. Bullough works for a national network, but BYUtv isn't a major sports network. The last statement on the Robbie Bullough deletion page said that if he worked on one of the major sports networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, or FOX), then he would have been qualified enough to meet the notability guidelines. Wolfe has worked with CBS, NBC, ESPN, and BTN (FOX), so I'd say he passes that statement of being notable. There is also the events that Wolfe has done. Wolfe has been the voice of the Arena Football League since the league returned in 2010. He has stayed with the league across NBC Sports Network, NFL Network, and now CBS Sports Network. He has called the Arena Bowl on both NBC and last year on CBS. Then there's the entire factor of Wolfe being an Olympic announcer. Would you not consider the Olympics to be a notable event? Wolfe is employed by NBC to cover an Olympic event. Before he was employed by NBC to do the Olympics, he covered both Summer and Winter Olympic events for Westwood One (Water Polo and Basketball if you want to get specific). I would think that any announcer who has covered the Olympics would meet the notability guideline. Wolfe also covers college football, men's college basketball, women's college basketball, and college baseball in addition to the events I mentioned that he does for Universal Sports. I don't know of many announcers who are employed by CBS, NBC, and ESPN simultaneously, but Wolfe is. I'd say he meets the notability guidelines more than 90% of the announcers that are on Wiki.Bigddan11 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is an Emmy award winner. per
WP:ANYBIO criterion #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Also, there are other citations - [1], [2], [3], [4] that can be incorporated into the article (I will soon do so if no one else does) to establish his notabilty.--JayJasper (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I also have to say keep. I misunderstood the AfD and didn't read it properly. I'll look for some sources some point unless someone else has one. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJasper. Green CKE 00:13, 12 July 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 Meivazhi. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salai Aandavargal

)

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

I made this article into a redirect, I was reverted, I'm bringing it here for wider discussion. I do not see any evidence of notability, and therefore believe that we should redirect or delete this article. Giant Snowman 19:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I appreciate the time you have taken to review this page.

The page

Salai Aandavargal is about a person, But You have redirected it to a page, Meivazhi Salai

which is about a place. That's why I undid your changes.

Meivazhi is a religion based in south-india. It has a separate page titled "Meivazhi". But these articles are not very well written and has mixed information. The Page Meivazhi Salai does not have much information on the actual customs and practices followed by the Meivazhi people. But it merely tells of the life history of it's founder. The last topic is about "incorruptibility" which comes under religion and it should belong to the topic meivazhi. The Page Meivazhi is only a summary of Meivazhi Salai and does not provide any information about the religion.

Therefore, I intend to separate the content into the proper category before cleaning them.

I don't understand why a founder of a religion cannot have an independent article written about him in wikipedia. Please tell me if something offends you.

talk) 20:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Above message copied from AFD talk page by Giant Snowman 20:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Meivazhi Salai and Meivazhi both appear to be about the same "monotheistic religion"...you have not evidenced why Salai Aandavargal merits an article of his own. Giant Snowman 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meivazhi Salai is a village in Tamil Nadu, India. You could find it in Google Maps. I don't know if Salai Aandavargal merits an article of his own or not. But separating his biography from the village

talk) 21:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

What sources are the contents of these articles on? The content needs to be verifiable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the target of the redirect was your concern why did you not change it? Also your signature still violates

WP:SIGLINK, please change it. Giant Snowman 21:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologize for the inconvenience caused.

talk) 19:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meivazhi. A page on the religion is a very appropriate place to cover its founder. There can even be a section on the founder and a targeted redirect to it. If and when the content and sourcing become too much for that page it can be spun off. Meivazhi Salai should cover the town and its geography. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
talk) 19:30, 11 July 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) 23:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storle machine gun

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

Another article apparently based entirely on a patent, which is a

WP:GNG purposes. I couldn't find significant independent coverage of this. The patent is listed in a very long list in a US gov't work on machine guns by Chinn, but that gives no further details as to the relevance of this patent, as far as I can tell. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...not notable. The article is completely based on a Google patent search. The only source of info on this firearm is Wikipedia. There is no information that suggests that this gun was ever made, not even as a one of a kind prototype.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KPassC

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

I found no significant coverage per

WP:N. The creator accused me of violating human rights and promoting censorship by prodding the article. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

If the article is an issue, KeePass and LastPass are two amongst many articles which too need to be "deleted". The article is within context, reasonable, has 20,000+ references within Google, has a third-party reference, is within the public domain and with the following points is indeed notable. It is unique, it offers features existing variants (within Wikipedia note) do not.

1. Practical official cross-platform clients 2. Uniform Polymorphic Credentials, URL bookmarking and Notes all in one 3. Optional Cloud facility offered by authors with further layers of encryption

Censorship is a violation of any human beings right. It is important Wikipedia maintains high standards by being impartial, neutral and unbiased. Let the people decide, more choice is better and information is key, if we removed this article but leave the rest, where is the level playing field.

If we contributed to articles these days instead of debating whether knowledge should exist then we would all benefit enormously, this debate seems petty and unjust.

Whatever you say. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

Explain here in public now... why you continue to discredit this article and let the audience know your opinions on KeePass and LastPass whilst you are at it. I strongly suspect you are illustrating elitist and favourable opinions on this topic and are behaving out of malice. You have presented ZERO evidence so kindly, partake legitimately or get lost.

The other articles are irrelevant to this discussion. I have no obligation to even look at those two articles. You, as this article's creator, have the obligation to show

Google hits are not the same thing as references. I have no problem explaining myself because this is a common AfD practice. SL93 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

In the article are two external links, the initial is a link to the authors who develop the software so I believe that is a legitimate reference unless you disagree, feel free to explain your disagreement. I suspect you will indeed disagree out of malice.

Indeed you have no obligation to interfere but you have chosen to none the less. It really bothers me why you harass this article, it is legitimate information and serves the public neutrally.

That is a

primary source so it alone does not show notability. SL93 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

Please explain whether the second external link and 415 third party references, 26000 third party references are not noble?

Third party:

1. http://www.softpedia.com/get/Security/Password-Managers-Generators/KPassC.shtml 2. http://www.geardownload.com/security/kpassc.html 3. http://www.bestfreewaredownload.com/freeware/t-free-kpassc-freeware-xkrcuowc.html 4. http://www.xentrik.net/software/kpassc.html

If you do your research before responding, I believe it is credible... noble (if you will) much like KeePass and LastPass. Granted no celebrity has endorsed it but it is somewhat technical.

... I am awaiting a reply.

Someone who throws personal attacks around does not deserve any replies. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

As a moderator, you have a responsibility to fulfil your job correctly without getting personal. For the record, no insults have been made. I thereby invite a neutral Wikipedia moderator, administrator to justify the thought process of SL93.

Please note I have screenshot this debate for third-party readership for professionalism reasons.

You're the one getting personal about it. Your personal attacks include violating human rights, vandalizing by sending the article to AfD, acting out of malice, being elitist, and being bias. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit to planned

canvassing which is against Wikipedia policy. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) I suppose i can give you an explanation in that case.

The
other stuff exists
.
In order to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia, article's need to be
WP:42
for a definition of a reliable source.
The sources in this article are not reliable sources. The first link is the software creators own website, which is inherently not reliable due to the "Independent" criteria for a reliable source. The second page is not reliable since it is a blog.
Google searches are never reliable sources - nor are google hits a measure of notability. Article's need specific references that back up the content in the article. If you wish to know why, try a Google search on my username (Excirial). This will return about 42k hit; If google hits were any indication my username would be about twice as notable as this application. I could add a more in-depth explanation, but i suppose this example should be a decent indication.

For the record, i agree with SL93 on the personal attack issue. Statements such as "illustrating elitist and favourable opinions on this topic and are behaving out of malice" are clear examples of a

personal attack. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Not to mention calling other editors nazis. Yintan 22:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is questionable whether an opinion on a review is an actual attack, regardless back on topic perhaps.

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

Q1. Please explain whether the second external link and 415 third party references, 26000 third party references are not noble?

It was already explained by a neutral third party admin just like you wanted. Also, I am not an admin and have no intention of applying. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

The links within Google address KPassC directly, the comparison between an alias is to be honest poor judgement. I fail to see your argument, an article on your alias as opposed to a product is of distinct context and your argument logic fails. I conclude this is an attempt to "attack" perhaps my existence on Wikipedia repeatedly and my contribution. Whilst I understand you are attempting to do a "job". There is a fine line between opinion and fact; some of your suppose response incorporates emotion I suspect which may or may not impair your reasoning skills and it is less than precise.

None the less, I don't believe your justifications justify why my article ought to be deleted. Just because you dislike something doesn't mean no one can obtain any "value" from it.

In addition, my point is clear, if you "chose" to pick on my article, less than 4 hours old? why not also nominate KeePass and LastPass.

DELETE Have you ever read WP:NEEDSMORE DRAMA? If you have, you would see that one example is:

If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...

do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion
do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale

Your reasoning violates this policy by suggesting that similar articles should be deleted rather than actually discussing why the KPassC article should be kept. The author has repeatedly removed the deletion tag from the page, making another violation of policy. This insignificant and not notable meets criteria for deletion and shouldn't remain on Wikipedia.155blue (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CREATOR PUBLIC RESPONSE:

(Personal attack removed)

Delete: Doesn't have enough sourcing to justify being kept as an article. Would encourage creator to read
p 22:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No
signing your posts? Thanks. Yintan 22:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Article creator has been indeffed for disruptive editing

p 22:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party RS evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I figured this might be a case of NOTYET as opposed to NOTEVER, but the author's conduct here might make a later proposal for a (properly sourced) article tricky. At present, there isn't enough coverage of the subject to justify the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent piece of software, deserves recognition amongst password manager alternatives here on Wikipedia. I sense a witch-hunt given the breadcrumbs of this one sided debate. — Preceding WP:DUCK[reply
]

Speedy delete - Per A7 PantherLeapord (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A
WP:SPI case was opened against Elite spark (talk · contribs · count) and 78.150.211.99 (talk · contribs · count). Feel free to contribute as you see fit.155blue (talk) 21:36, 12 July 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) 23:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Bossekota

Jeremy Bossekota (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)

Fails
WP:GNG, never played pro or internatonal, passing mention for refs on article Murry1975 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Historical Miniatures Gaming Society. Selectively, as discussed. Sandstein 06:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HMGS-South

HMGS-South (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 organization. Perhaps someone closer to the subject can find references; I took a look and could not find one that I would consider a primary source. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unlike the larger related org also on AFD, this one doesn't actually claim notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge website link and conference info to
WP:BRANCH and this ref: [5]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as above per WP:BRANCH. If this is speedied (which I'd not prefer), I'll be recreating and redirecting it to the main article, pending a keep outcome on that AfD process. If kept, all branch titles should be page created and redirected to the main article, then the main page could be fleshed out with details of events and press from the eleven regional chapters. The officer information in this pagespace is excessive detail. BusterD (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Miniatures Gaming Society was closed as keep. As stated above, I've taken the liberty of creating redirects from all the HMGS branch tiles to the national organization's pagespace. BusterD (talk) 16:34, 18 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Miniatures Gaming Society

Historical Miniatures Gaming Society (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 organization. Perhaps someone closer to the subject can find references; I took a look and could not find one that I would consider a primary source. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claims large membership (or what I would assume to be large membership for this sort of thing) but doesn't have the required substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:CLUB. National in scale and covered in multiple sources such as [6], [7], [8], [9]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. HMGS is the top level society for historical miniatures gaming. Organization has been around since 1986 and a quick search turns up [10], [11], [12]. HMGS chapters run dozens of gaming conventions across the U.S. Several of those chapters would themselves meet WP:GNG. A more thorough search would turn up lots of offline RS. BusterD (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HMGS is a well established organization, and should be kept.. Its chapters should be merged into the overall article, with redirects, instead of the small individual articles now being challeged with AfDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 July 2013‎

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 Wingin' It#Cast and characters. --BDD (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Timmins

Kendra Timmins (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. Fails
talk) 14:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)*[reply]

Redirect - To Wingin' It#Cast and characters as a viable search term until career develops past current guidelines. Dru of Id (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dru or Delete per insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While deletion is technically allowable in this case of an
in case she becomes notable later on. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 15 July 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 keep. causa sui (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Valenstein

Elliot Valenstein (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)

Insufficient content to warrant keeping the article. --Forward Unto Dawn 12:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep based on totally invalid nomination criterion (see
WP:PROF with a h-index of 37, by my count. His book Great and Desperate Cures: The Rise and Decline of psychosurgery and other Radical Treatments for Mental Illness has over 400 citations. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep. WoS shows h-index of 30 and WorldCat shows enormous holdings of his many books: 1302, 1181, 913, 741, 528, 379, ... Evidence of notability is conclusive and it would be very good form here for nom to withdraw this AfD before lots of time is wasted on it. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy keep this is a silly nomination. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to English Defence League. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Volunteer Force

English Volunteer Force (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)

Low quality sources and is not notable enough
talk 12:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
moral ♪♫ 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
moral ♪♫ 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
moral ♪♫ 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete On the face of it, this doesn't seem to meet
WP:ORG. A minor far-right English splinter group supported by one local source. A redirect to English Defence League#Offshoots and divisions is possible. Funny ^Pika! 14:15, 25 June 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) 19:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief summary to Funny's target. I have heard no reference to this on the news and presume it to be very small. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree. I've not heard much in the way of news for this fascist organization to warrant it's own article. scope_creep (talk) 16:34, 10 July 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 keep. The nominator didn't provide a rationale for deletion, other than calling the site A lovely piece of financially-rewarding spam, however, a look at the article doesn't show any
deletion rationale. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 05:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

International Society of Genetic Genealogy

International Society of Genetic Genealogy (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)

the ISOGG website invites one to provide a donation before any information is provided; the ISOGG wiki may well be wonderful except every single page invites one to contribute a non-trivial sum to access information (typically $US950). A lovely piece of financially-rewarding spam if one can get away with it, but I feel time to pull this one up, pronto. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am blind, or perhaps we are not looking at the same website. Please provide a link to such an invitation (and quote the part in question). How can you help ISOGG? explains how members can support ISOGG but it does not mention any financial donations. Helen (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in the Walk Through the Y programme run by Family Tree DNA, which includes genetic sequencing, costs $950 but it is not a service offered by ISOGG which is not affiliated with any registered, trademarked, and/or copyrighted names of companies, websites and organization. Helen (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming I am supposed to take this ridiculous deletion discussion seriously. Helen (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have to pay any money to join ISOGG nor pay any annual fee. Someone is trolling. Jlick (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator appears to have misunderstood the website. Nominator should preferably also refrain from removing links to the ISOGG tree, eg diff. ("Non-scientific speculation" ???) Jheald (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe we should expose our readership to invitations to email a particular address before any information whatsoever is given, as the link above solicits. If it looks like a..., it probably is a ... Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain exactly what you are talking about with links etc. Vague unsubstantiated allegations are not helpful. Helen (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the link you provided to how you can help ISOGG above - I will certainly not follow one of those links and we have a responsibility to protect our more gullible readership from so doing Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that link does not mention any financial donations. It includes email links for certain specific queries, but so do most websites. Your nomination appears to be unfounded. Helen (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It only includes email links- no information is otherwise provided about anything else whatsoever- you click on one of those links, if you dare, or you are closely-connected, but there is no way I will just as I will not click on the masses of scam links I receive by email each day Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of free online information. What browser are you using? Can you see the black and white menu on the left of the home page? (Home/Resources/For Newbies/For Admins/Famous DNA/YSNP Tree/Success Stories/Speakers List/Meetings) In the What's New box on the right there is also a link to the Wiki among other things. Helen (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO request for money and PLENTY of FREE information. Your nomination is unfounded. Helen (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ISOGG website is built using frames for the header and menu, which means that individual pages within the site currently do not display those when linking directly to an internal page, such as the Help page that Helen mentioned. If you go to the ISOGG homepage, you can see the full website, menus and all. Perhaps ISOGG is "guilty" (and I use that term so very loosely) of an outdated website structure, but it most certainly is not a scam, spam, or any of the other ridiculous things that the complainant has suggested. Efweb (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This proposal seems entirely illogical, and not based on any normal reason for proposing a deletion. Even if ISOGG's website was entirely commercially oriented, that would not be a valid reason for not having an article about ISOGG. We have lots of articles about companies, and we very often link to commercial webpages. But anyway, if we are trying to protect internet-ignorant readers from dangerous adverts, we can delete links, but not whole articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I think the nominator's browser must have been hijacked by malware. The spam links he describes do not exist. The nomination is not valid. Dahliarose (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is not and never has been a request for money on any ISOGG pages. I wonder whether this Crusoe8181 has really experienced that, or is just an anti-ISOGG troll looking for a way to erase the organization from Wikipedia.Iris-J2 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I recommend speedy keep based on Wikipedia policies. The delete request is vexatious and the nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question. Truly, the delete request has no basis in reality. After reviewing the site, I was unable to find a single page that asked explicitly for money. Let me quote from the Join ISOGG page: "No membership dues or fees - ISOGG is FREE!" I understand it to be a volunteer organization that provides assistance to individuals who wish to understand how genetic testing can help them learn more about genealogy. Due to the organization's work being referenced in major newspapers and academic journals, it meets the primary criteria of notability for an organization. Perhaps the original user could point us to the exact URLs that ask for money. The only reference to $950 is a single entry in the ISOGG Wiki that contains a neutral discussion of a commercial product offered by an unaffiliated corporation (the page Helen referenced above). The dollar amount $950 does not appear on any other page according to the Google.com cache of the website. Paul K. Graham (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This nomination is based on fraudulent premises. Nowhere on the ISOGG wiki does it ask for money—$950 or any lesser amount. In fact, both ISOGG's wiki and homepage are explicit that "There are NO dues or fees to join." The nominator seems to have some kind of personal animus toward genetic genealogy in general and ISOGG in particular. For a history, see
List of haplogroups of notable people for deletion, which by the way the consensus was keep. Nathanm mn (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep. Beyond what was said above, if you go to the organization's about page, you see:

THERE ARE NO MEMBERSHIP DUES -
THERE ARE NO DONATIONS ACCEPTED -
YOUR MONEY IS NOT WANTED BY US SO GO
SPEND IT ON A DNA TEST

Disclaimer: I've been a member for several months and have used the website for years, so you might find me less than objective. But I have never been asked for any money, nor have I even been exhorted to volunteer. Submitter seems to be trolling. Markzero (talk) 04:30, 11 July 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) 23:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poet Tree

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Poet Tree

Articles for deletion/Poet Tree (2nd nomination)

Poet Tree (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)

"Poet Tree", Bangladeshi literary magazine, I cannot find this anywhere with notable references. Please remove this. Leela Bratee (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single source has cropped up since this was first brought to AfD 1.5 years ago. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails
talk) (contribs) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete doesn't seem like there's anything encyclopedic to say about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 11 July 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) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ikechukwu Azuonye

Ikechukwu Azuonye (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)

Long autobiography of a psychiatrist whose notability is probably not sufficient for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 09:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not meet
talk) (contribs) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not notable, in an encyclopedic sense, as a physician or otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 13 July 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) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biteindex

Biteindex (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)

I declined this {{
general notability guidelines. It seems like it is one person's interpretation of the Solunar Theory as it relates to fishing. My searches for other people using the term have come up negative. kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I read this article as thinly disguised advertising for the website/service. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 01:33, 29 June 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,
czar · · 03:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with
talk) 16:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

All I Really Want (Kim Lukas song)

All I Really Want (Kim Lukas song) (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)

Yes. I know this song did well on a lot of charts, and probably a lot of Forgien people still know about it, but shockingly enough I couldn't find much in-depth info or critical responses on this song, so little that it wouldn't do well with
WP:NSONG. None of the background info, although still possibly reliable, don't have any info from any independent source at all, and aren't really useful enough to make this song have it's own article. This deletion nomination of a Beyonce song
should give you an idea on why I nominated this.
If anyone happens to find any magazine or newspaper articles on this song, fell free to use them and cite them in this article, and I would be as happy as all heck to withdraw this nomination. EditorE (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there any reason why you didn't consider merging this to Kim Lukas? Deletion isn't the only option. --Michig (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 June 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,
czar · · 03:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:46, 10 July 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. Much as enjoy this article, there is consensus to delete this. I would hope to see a sentence or two in the main Bobby article about the more notable losses, and maybe a cite to Mednis's book. But this level of breathless coverage is inappropriate. -- Y not? 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess

Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess (2nd nomination)

List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Garry Kasparov in chess. The same issues apply here: even top-ranked players get beat, often by people who aren't "better" than they. It's more obviously a problem with Kasparov because he was ranked higher than anyone, but it's just as much of a problem here. This was merged back into Fischer's article the first time around, but its length guarantees that it will keep getting split back out. Best to put selected defeats in his article and junk the rest. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There is at least a book on the subject, making this kind of less whimsical than the other analogous articles. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing but I think really it's better off as a bibliography entry in his article, with perhaps a short section some of the more important losses. I mean, I once beat a reasonably highly-ranked player back in high school, but it was a simultaneous chess demo and my board was much smaller than any of the others. I don't think it was my brilliant play that did the trick; if the persona had an article I wouldn't want that loss listed as though it were something significant, because it was really something of a fluke. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a game would probably be unverifiable, so I doubt it would make the cut for the list. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NOTDIRECTORY. Chess fan cruft. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a comprehensive list of one person's defeats or failures seems unencyclopedic, and I have concerns that this could open the door to similar articles. Of course Fisher is notable, but the place to cover his career is on his own page, where the losses are balanced by the wins to feel less POV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there are four such articles that are not placed on AfD at the moment: List of people who have beaten José Raúl Capablanca in chess, List of people who have beaten Alexander Alekhine in chess, List of people who have beaten Paul Morphy in chess and List of people who have beaten Emanuel Lasker in chess.

And yes, I agree with Quale on the offensiveness of some of the comments here. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not all the times he was beaten are notable. The ones that are can just be (and probably are) mentioned in Fischer's article
p 22:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The times that Fischer was beaten are highly notable; notable enough that an entire book is devoted exclusively to discussing them, How to Beat Bobby Fischer, written by respected chess writer GM
WP:GNG
, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Personally I find the "whimsical" and "chess fan cruft" accusations to be offensive, and I wonder if the delete voters actually bothered to read the article. Some excerpts:
Pal Benko: All three of Benko's victories were in international play, with two in World Championship cycle games: the 1958 Portorož Interzonal and the 1962 Curaçao Candidates Tournament. Benko defeated Fischer in the first round of the 1962 Candidates Tournament with 1.g3, an opening subsequently named the Benko Opening as Benko also used it to defeat Tal in the same tournament. After this first-round loss, Fischer got off to a poor start in the 1962 Candidates Tournament and his fourth-place finish out of eight was a major disappointment. Fischer was dominant in U.S. play, with a +4−0=3 record against Benko in U.S. Championship games from 1958–1966.[5]

Arthur Bisguier (U16): Fischer had a huge plus score against GM Bisguier (+13−1=1), but Bisguier crushed him in their first game, played in round 1 of the 1956 Rosenwald Memorial when Fischer was 13. Their second game ended in a draw, and then Fischer won 13 consecutive games from 1957–70 for what may be the longest consecutive win streak between GM opponents in chess history.[6]

René Letelier Martner: Fischer had a +3−1=0 score against Letelier. Letelier defeated Fischer in 1959 at Mar del Plata, in a game which according to Mednis (How to Beat Bobby Fischer), featured Fischer's worst move ever. In a pawn endgame, Fischer moved the less advanced of his two passed pawns, and thereby lost the pawn race for promotion, giving his opponent an extra queen, instead of entering an endgame with a queen on each side. According to Mednis, a "fairy godmother" appeared for Letelier. Fischer gained some revenge by winning a 23-move brilliancy at their next meeting at the 1960 Leipzig Olympiad, a game that Fischer included in My 60 Memorable Games.[31]

Wolfgang Unzicker: Fischer had a lifetime record of +4−1=3 against Unzicker. Unzicker defeated Fischer in the disastrous (for Fischer) 1960 Buenos Aires tournament in which Fischer lost four games and finished in a career worst 13th place. Fischer blundered on the 12th move by picking up his h-pawn intending 12...h6??. Realizing before he let go of the pawn that this was a mistake that would be exploited by 13.Bxh6, he was required by the touch-move rule to move the pawn and played 12...h5?, leading to his resignation on move 22.[53][1]

There's a lot more, but I'm not going to paste the entire article here. In my opinion, if you don't see how this information is encyclopedic, then you don't understand anything about chess. Quale (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing is that this is a book about the games: other than a statistical breakout of his opponents and a table of the games, the entire rest of the book is devoted to a move-by-move analysis of the game play. Meanwhile at the very beginning the book says that win-loss ratios in high-level chess are really pretty low, and that we are talking 61 losses to 188 draws and 324 wins. Again, I can see that, at an encyclopedic level of detail, there are surely certain important losses to be noted in the narrative of his career. I'm not convinced that every loss is notable, and especially not that every victor is notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cruft. There is no reason to catalog every single loss that occurred during his career, only the notable ones, which probably are already mentioned at Fischer's own article. Also, while it may be adequately sourced, the article reads very poorly. "Bisguier crushed him in their first game"? "Fischer gained some revenge by winning a 23-move brilliancy"? "at the disastrous (for Fischer) 1960 Buenos Aires tournament"? Are these chess terms or the result of a big chess fan cobbling together an article? It basically reads like something you'd find on a fan wikia. While I can see the work put into it, nothing has convinced me that this is a notable subject.
Talk 00:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all above. Quale - if knowing a lot about chess is a requirement to understand why the article should stay, what does that say about it? Ansh666 02:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean Ansh666, but this is a misguided argument. We have lots of articles on obscure topics, and rightly so -this is not the point. -- cyclopia^speak! 08:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that - it's not a deletion argument. It's telling Quale not to use it as a keep argument, either. Ansh666 18:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Quale. As for Mangoe's concern, of course the book is mostly about the moves, that is the instructional part that people want to pay for. But the statistics of who beat him, and commentary in the introduction of the book is not trivial coverage. It is directly related to the subject matter in this list, so yes, I think the subject covered by the list is demonstrably notable in accordance with
WP:N. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as too highly discriminate data for a general encyclopedia (IINFO). If it was the case that Fischer had a near perfect record that he only lost a few times to, maybe those loses could be documented, but this list implies that he lost much more than 50 times (just in the first section alone). So he is human and loses at chess, news at 11. (The equivalent would be saying something like "Teams that won the World Series over the New York Yankees") I would assume, however, that some of these loses are notable matchups that may be better documented elsewhere, we just don't need ever loss recorded noted. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts. I don't see that the subject (Fischer's losses) is a notable one supported by RSs. Tables of game records are common and just summary info in a comprehensive book like Wade's Bobby Fischer's Chess Games, and to infer those tables are evidence of independent attention from RSs that support article notability, is an invalid argument. The fact Edmar Mednis devoted a book to the subject is the best case for notability in RS, but I think that fails too because it is an isolated source of interest and is tainted in two ways: 1) it's an intesting topic for a book, to get booksales, 2) many books have been written about Bobby Fischer (is there any other player who has had more books written about them!?), so one shouldn't be surprised to find that an author picked up a previously unexplored aspect of Fischer's career. One of the reasons Fischer's losses may seem "special" for investigation or a book, may be because Fischer was completely dominant in his time, with the impressive never-heard-of-before result of two 6–0 sweeps in the Candidates Matches. *However*, in his day, Capablanca was considered "invincible". (Apparently only Alekhine didn't buy that, as he prepared himself to defeat Capablanca, and he did.) But Capa's losses don't have a book by Mednis. (That is easily explained. People still talk about Bobby Fischer as though he were still alive. People don't talk about Capablanca like that. The revenue potential for booksales on Capa are thus not there with equal force.) That said, if the article is deleted, I will miss it. I think it is interesting and fascinating reading. Ditto Mednis's book. And I'd like to see it expanded for even more interest and fascination. But I feel that way because I'm one of many millions of "Fischer fans". (And is therefore my biased POV.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. Compare this to this. Also this to this.[reply]

Keep well sourced and WP:N isn't an issue here. Given that nearly all of the folks listed are blue links and given the sourcing including a book dedicated to his losses, I don't see a problem. I'm not seeing a lot of policy-based arguments other than IINFO. And I just don't see how that applies. "...provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." seems easily met. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Whimsical, fanboy Cruft, fails GNG. This sort of cruft gives Wikipedia a bad name. Sharkchick B (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck does this fail the GNG? Multiple sources including a book solely on the topic... Hobit (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The part that I could see it failing is "Presumed" - the past point of
WP:GNG. Ansh666 17:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Erb? The GNG tells us when things are presumed notable. We are past that point. One may argue (and I have in the past) that meeting the GNG isn't enough even if no specific guideline says otherwise. But that's not failing the GNG. Hobit (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Original research, insignificant subject. This is only interesting for a small niche of gamers. This sort of thing belongs on a Chesscruft wiki, not on Wikipedia. The sum of human knowledge will not suffer in the slightest if this trash is extirpated. Gameknot Chess (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Sharkchick B has only edited this AFD, and User:Gameknot Chess has edited only this AfD, her/his userpage an a noticeboard. This kind of pattern is quite clearly suspicious - new accounts coming at AFD at their first edit, citing guidelines. Could some experienced admin have a look? -- cyclopia^speak! 16:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I came here to work on the article about the "Ancient Aliens Dude" but that page is locked for some reason. So I'm just kind of in limbo until I can edit that page. I have new sources and information on the Ancient Aliens Guy that I want to add. I plan to getting the article to Featured article status. Gameknot Chess (talk) 17:29, 16 July 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) 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Erotic Review

The Erotic Review (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)

I'm nominating this on behalf of
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject certainly meets
WP:GNG, as evidenced by references given to articles in Wired, MSNBC, etc. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Certainly a notable subject, per FreeRangeFrog. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

I would like to request that the Wikipedia page/article on The Erotic Review be deleted on several grounds:

First, through a review of our corporate records, it has come to our attention that several of the statements reported in the articles referenced are factually and legally inaccurate. We are currently in the process of having all the articles referenced on the Wikipedia page pulled down and/or revised.

The article in Reference Number 7 contained a reference/link to a Statement in paragraph 3 (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/prostitution-site-cuts-ties-with-founder-after-charges/?_r=0). That Statement contained inaccurate information and you will note has since been pulled down.

Any reference to David Elms as a founder, owner, creator, CEO, president, etc. are factually and legally inaccurate.

Any reference to the site being based or operating in The Netherlands is factually and legally inaccurate.

Since most referenced articles incorrectly state these 'facts' we are aggressively working to get them removed and/or revised. The misinformation in these articles has proven to be financially harmful to the site, The Erotic Review.

For these reasons the Wikipedia page/article on The Erotic Review is inaccurate, full of falsities, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.249.32 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However the problem is that at one point he was the founder or was at least considered to be as far as the media goes. We have to go by what the sources say. If you can have someone write an updated news report on the site that correct these issues and prove that they are factually incorrect, we can change the article accordingly. However we cannot simply accept on your say-so that the article is incorrect, especially since you are editing on behalf of the company and therefore have a conflict of interest. You would benefit from the article getting written to be as complimentary as possible, not to mention from its out and out removal. Multiple media reports have stated that Elms was the founder and that he was accused of trading sexual favors for positive reviews on the site and that people have said that when he didn't get it, he woudl threaten them with negative feedback that could ruin their trade. The key word here is that they were claims. Not fact, but claims. When it comes down to it, we can't eliminate sourced material simply because it would hurt your business. We're not in the market of editing out anything that would be financially harmful. Sometimes we do this if it's so dramatically harmful that it's beyond a reasonable doubt (such as if someone were to claim that he was eating babies or something to that extent), but generally speaking we don't censor or edit materials because it could hurt someone or something. I also want to warn you that even if by some chance the article is removed, stuff like this doesn't go away. There's no way to wipe the internet clean, especially when it has to do with anything sexual in tone.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is notable. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD is not cleanup. 151.74.125.146 (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't really about cleanup- I personally think that the article should be retained, but this was pretty much at the request of Treehousepark, who had been repeatedly trying to delete the article. They kept requesting its deletion via improperly placed speedy templates, so in all fairness I decided to open up an AfD for them in order to give the article a full range of editor opinions.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 14 July 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. In consideration of the suspicious nomination, the article's CSD vandalism history, and the overwhelming consensus of the !votes, I believe this is a bad faith nomination. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mug shot publishing industry

Mug shot publishing industry (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 article is spam and has violated several copyright laws it is a over promotional and poorly written piece of content to advertise for 1 mugshot posting site that is an alleged reputation management company that owns the mugshot posting sites that all want images remove from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreyGeeks (talk • contribs)

Administrator note I have asked the nominator to clarify their nomination reason. I also just noticed the similarity of the nominator's user name and the creator of the article. I have subsequently blocked the nominator's account due to it being against user name policy. In consideration of the suspect user name and edit history of the article, I think this is a bad faith nomination, but I'll let it run for a little bit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the sources (Wired, ABC, various local/regional press) are reliable and sufficiently comprehensive to meet
WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep What a grim industry. Good article, many and varied sources. scope_creep (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Angel Ferrer (费明睿)

Miguel Angel Ferrer (费明睿) (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)

promotional article with insufficient sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -I'm going to put my money on paid editing here. Regardless, delete per nom; no question about it. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No
WP:RS evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom on grounds of
WP:RS. And why is there even Chinese characters on the title? みんな空の下 (トーク) 08:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's advertisement material. STSC (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete resume/advertisement for some random guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure piece of SPAM. --Iniciativass (talk) 21:12, 14 July 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) 23:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael V. Marinello

Michael V. Marinello (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)

I do not see any secondary sources that would show notability. and none of his positions is intrinsically notable DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -and move on. Nothing notable going on here. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article for person who lacks substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:30, 11 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Zarate (weaver)

Juan Zarate (weaver) (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 person has failed
WP:BLPNOTE guidelines since 2010. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep He is a notable weaver who has recived international recognition. The fact he lives in Guatemal but was noted by a writer in Salt Lake City indicates this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to address those fact on his page. the Page has been tagged as not meeting
WP:BLPNOTE if his entire accompaniments are listed in one line.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nom has apparently made a series of dubious AfD nominations without proper
WP:BEFORE checks. -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. If 202.124.74 had bothered to look, the pages were changed by Johnpacklambert in order to justfy them being kept. Additionally I believe 202.124.74.7 is a Sock of Johnpacklambert.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sockpuppetry accusation is ridiculous, but is being dealt with at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnpacklambert. I note that the nom has just withdrawn two AfD nominations on obvious "keep" articles, so his/her batting average isn't great. In this particular case, see the !vote below. -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew those AFD only after you made over a dozen improvements to the pages. The AFD was made when the pages didn't include any of the information that you use to justify the keeping of the pages. Once the info was added that allowed me to withdraw my AFD. The fact that I am willing to withdraw a AFD if you fix the page shows that I don't want pages deleted if they can be save.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the search requirements in
WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral~~Weak keep~~. The subject is discussed in at least the BYU monograph Mormon Americana: A Guide to Sources and Collections in the United States. -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would even be willing to withdraw this AFD if you improve this one sentence page to show why he is notable other than ONE minor mention in one book.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Johnpacklambert, but http://academia.edu/2429899/El_arte_del_mate_decorado_trayectoria_historica_y_continuidad_cultural fits your requirement listed, yes? Not English, but you didn't specify - now more than two published sources. -- 174.22.253.45 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also you might have more luck looking for Juan Zárate instead of just Juan Zarate. -- 174.22.253.45 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Spanish sources are fine (indeed probably necessary) for meeting
WP:CREATIVE can be met here, and have edited my !vote above accordingly. The nom seems to have made a good call on this one. -- 202.124.88.35 (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article needs to explain why he is notable. Being a weaver isn't enough. He gets all of one sentence in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article which mentions probably a hundred other artists by name... If there were an article about him there, well, then we'd have something to talk about. As it is, we have two 20-year-old sources that mention him in passing and no way of knowing whether or not he is even alive today. ~
talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually the number of artists mentioned is far fewer than you claim, and the person who wrote that article in the EoM is one of the leading experts in the field of Mormon art (some could argue that he is the top expert at this time), so his inclusion of any particular artist in that short entry is very significant. -- 174.22.253.45 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, then, the only place the subject should appear on Wikipedia would be in a
talk) 04:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I enjoy rescuing potentially good articles from AfD, but sourcing for this one is really paper-thin at the moment, and I can't find anything other than what's in the article. It would be good if the article author could dig out what Mormon Americana: A Guide to Sources and Collections in the United States has to say about the subject, or find some additional references. Photographs of the subject's work will help too. On existing sourcing, deletion would be pretty much inevitable. -- 203.171.196.18 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about these sources? I am leaning towards Delete, but I can't see what is said in the encyclopedia or the extent of the coverage in the other book. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia has exactly one line. -- 202.124.75.11 (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there appears to be pretty much nothing encyclopedic or verifiable to say about him. Not a notable artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Juan Zarate is a weaver in Guatemala. Yeah, so what? Clear
WP:GNG fail. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 17 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global IT University

Global IT University (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)

Besides a whole lot of Better Business Bureau and Pissed Consumer complaints, I'm having a hard time turning up anything on this university to even establish that it's "a thing". TKK ^{bark !} 02:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete -per nom. My Googling didn't turn up anything that persuaded me to !keep it. That said, I generally prefer to keep educational institutions on Wikipedia. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A for-profit university whose notability as an educational institution cannot be determined (I tried) should be treated as a company, and this fails
WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A staff training company despite its name; no
WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to The Chaser. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Stronach

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gregor Stronach

Articles for deletion/Gregor Stronach (2nd nomination)

Gregor Stronach (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)

since no one commented on the last AfD. does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:CREATIVE. 1 gnews hit [14], trove reveals sources from
ABC Australia and The Chaser but they would be considered primary sources since they were his employer. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just merge or redirect to the Chaser article? His article says he's the founder? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he's not a founder according to The Chaser LibStar (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Founding member, my mistake. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Chaser Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Chaser, agreed, sensible and logical. — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 13 July 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 issues against a speedy renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TI DSK 6416

TI DSK 6416 (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 engineering sample and test platform. No references to confer notability, and only a small possibility of temporal interest. Mikeblas (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 19:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:32, 10 July 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 issues against a speedy renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TI DSK 6713

TI DSK 6713 (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 engineering sample and test platform. No references to confer notability, and only a small possibility of temporal interest. Mikeblas (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:32, 10 July 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 issues with speedy renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MaXimus (album)

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 album on a non-notable label from a quite notable band. Not everything released by notable musicians is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
moral♪♫ 07:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:31, 10 July 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 Room 237. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kirk (producer)

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 individual. Majority of references avoid referring to individual or if they do they are only one line mentions. These are hardly enough to establish
notability. reddogsix (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly minor producer. Only last reference mentions him by name. Fails
WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete producer who hasn't produced anything especially notable yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page RevisedThank you for your advice. You're right; the articles I linked to did not establish notariety, as you pointed out. I have attempted to correct this by adding 8 links to articles which feature the subject in the headline, and extensively quote him. Most of these are interviews with him alone, or with one other person. I hope this works. I could add a dozen more if it helps.Butchiegirl

Comment - All I see are
secondary references. reddogsix (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -I have added another source, as per your guidance. I believe that this article now qualifies under Wikipedia: Notability (people), Creative Professionals, #3, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". The previous sources, and link to the film ROOM 237 on Wikipedia, establish that subject has produced a film which is significant and well-known, and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. In the new source, the interviewee quotes and refers to many of these articles and reviews, and places the film within the context of the producer's other work. Butchiegirl —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, I don't agree the subject has created a major body of work or the film meets the criteria in the cited guideline.reddogsix (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've
WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Room 237 or delete. The few borderline sources play up his connection to the documentary. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WP:FILMMAKER, since I wouldn't call Room 237 a "significant" work; a significant work would be a film that has been subject of scholarly study, or a major retrospective, or analysed in detail by a prominent writer and goes beyond simply being notable. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I believe this film is significant. If you do a google search, you will find hundreds of articles about Room 237. Not only reviews, but think-pieces about the film's innovative use of re-purposed footage, its impact on the emerging genre of visual essays, and the unprecedented use of Fair Use. It has played every major film festival in the world. It has made many critics top ten lists. Entertainment Weekly named it the #4 best film of 2012, above Argo. Chuck Klosterman called it "the best non-fiction film I've seen all year." Brett Easton Ellis dubbed it "one of the best films of 2012." As the producer of the film, the subject of my article "played a major role in co-creating" this significant film. Butchiegirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.97.197 (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has received a lot of coverage, but so do Transformer movies. I think it is impossible to assess the significance of a piece of work by its immediate impact. If it is being singled out as a key work a few years down the line then it will be easier to determine. Betty Logan (talk) 15:29, 13 July 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.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_July_10&oldid=1142631975"~~