Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 11 October 13 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Anna

Dawn Anna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A notability tag was added but nothing has happened to fix. This movie fails guidelines.

Talk 23:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Talk 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Talk 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Pawar

Abhijit Pawar (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)

Contested PROD. reason was "Passes BLPPROD, just

Verified to remain." The article talk page has a huge swathe of primary sources references. This looks like a pretty standard attempt to gain notability by virtue of Wikipedia entry. Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, it should be discussed, bcause the subject is not really the sole owner, as one contributor here has implied. The subject is the son of Pratap Pawar (the chairman of the Sakal Media Group which owns the paper(s)) who acquired the company in 1985 and built up the business, but, surprisingly, he is mentioned only in passing in the Sakal article. He was previously the managing director, the post now held by the subject. The subject is a qualified engineer, who wound up his IT activities in Munich to join the family business when the call came, and succeeded his father. Another Pawar is the editor-in-chief of the group's flagship newspaper. They are all members of the Sharad Pawar clan. The subject's father Pratap Pawar is a younger brother of Sharad Pawar, a central government minister, whose daughter Supriya Sule, a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, has also been a board member of the Sakal Media Group. The creator of this page has, in, fact, himself revised the Sakal Media Group article, in which the subject and his activities, mentioned in this article, are also mentioned. So, why the duplication! This page doesn't really tell us anything new or more significant about him. More about him could be added to his profile in the Sakal article, as and when required. That article needs to be improved with more coverage given to other leading figures in the group. It is not a one-man-show, as this AfD seems to imply. All things considered, I think, for the time being, the Sakal Media Group article is the ideal place for all Sakal group honchos to be given their fair share of the limelight. The subject here does not seem to warrant an extra article at present. Hence, I think there is a compelling case to delete this article. I also don't see anything of substance in this article to merge or redirect, but the option is there.- Zananiri (talk) 21:09, 9 October 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, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Reviewing news archives, I'm convinced the subject meets the notability guideline, and I see enough added content differing from to Sakal to warrant a stub. Information about his positions with other newspapers and organizations are off-topic and should not belong in Sakal. Every sentence has a source, most of which look great, with the only primary sources supporting claims seemingly unlikely to be challenged. A fitting stub if you ask me. — MusikAnimal talk 03:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not many people become MDs of companies such as
    WP:GNG, so it boils down to his MD post at Sakal. Had he continued doing whatever he was doing in Munich, we might never have heard of him. If Sakal remains a family business and his son succeeds him one day, just as he has suceeded his father, the son, too, in all likelihood, will have the same sort of standing this man has. Notability in such cases is incidental. So, yes, I think that the Sakal article is where he belongs. The additional bit in this article about his education and the degree he earned is cosmetic and could be included there. His predecessor, his father Pratap Pawar, who actually built up the company, has no WP article. He is, however, mentioned in passing in the Sakal article, implying that MDs come and go. Here today, gone tomorrow. The Pawar family took over the company in 1985 (see company history in the Sakal article) so one can understand why a Pawar holds the post. It is not like The Coca-Cola Company where the CEO has to earn his position. I am in favour of this article being deleted. If not, redirecting it to Sakal may be better than keeping it.- Zananiri (talk) 21:17, 18 October 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. m.o.p 04:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardaway

Michael Hardaway (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)

Puff piece presumably created by the subject. Subject gets a lot of Google hits, as one might expect from a PR agent, but unfortunately they are not in reliable sources that significantly discuss him, and therefore don't confer notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless, over the next seven days, sources are provided which support a significant claim to encyclopedicity. Being written up by an alumni magazine is not sufficient. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm flummoxed. If there are articles attached that illuminate the subject as being notable, is that still grounds for deletion? Your opinion of whether its a puff piece doesn't negate the apparent fact that this person seems to be notable. Conjecture and facts are not the same thing. I've taken the time to reach through each citation in its entirety. I suggest that we all should do the same thing, then we can come to the smartest decision. I don't think we should inject our opinions in the matter we've done thus far. From the cited articles (sans the alumni magazine article) it seems as though the person is notable. The alumni article only substantiates the person's alma mater. Hope this helps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.9.166 (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Notability" is not a magic talisman word, it is a concept subject to discussion, debate and community consensus. You believe that the articles cited represent significant biographical coverage by independent reliable sources. Other Wikipedians have examined the same sources and come to differing conclusions. Below, I offer my analysis of the sources provided:
  • [1] A one-line bio-rip in a blog event calendar entry about a "networking power brunch." Not an RS.
  • [2] A "single of the month" interview that offers the subject's views on dating, but nothing substantive about his life and work.
  • [3] A mention in a press release on a blog that calls the subject a "magnetic superconnector known for facilitating relationships around Washington" without further elaboration or discussion. Not an RS.
  • [4] A one-line blog mention that he hosted a conference panel. Not an RS.
  • [5] A mention in a university PR newsletter that he helped organize a panel discussion and hopes to launch a social-welfare program. Borderline RS, but not really independent.
Collectively, these do not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I note that this is not a judgment on the article subject's life and works in any way, shape or form. Lots of people do many wonderful things and don't end up with significant biographical coverage of their life and works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per NorthBySouthBaranof's comments above, the sources cited are insufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I see where you're coming from, though I believe we may have missed this piece that outlines his work: http://gaitway.tumblr.com/post/5360620550/dcs-top-image-architect-brands-the-political — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3B80:C1:9535:43BF:1B36:8D4B (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more meaningless blog puffery. He works in PR. He can get himself written about in blogs (or write them himself). That shows he can do his job. It shows nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under

A7 criteria. No assertion of notability, little in the way of sourcing aside from mentions of the subject's work. m.o.p 04:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Martine Frølich Poppe Wang

Martine Frølich Poppe Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be very notable. All exhibitions are group shows. Though they are Norwegian, there is not page I can find for her on the Norwegian WP. Article reads like a resume, not encyclopedia entry. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I could not assess most of the sources as they were outdated, but from their description it is not about things that would make her notable. And Google doesn't return anything notable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Striking own comment. Iselilja (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Article reads like a resume" How so? It lists exhibitions, which is exactly the criteria artists use for notability, see
    talk) 06:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Right. The exhibitons listed mostly seems to have been arranged by the Association of Norwegian Students Abroad (ANSA). So, we are at student level, but she may be among the better students. Her common name appears to be Martine Poppe and I found some more sources while googling that name. She graduated from Slade School of Fine Art in 2013. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 06:50, 13 October 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.

WP:SNOW - all remaining problems with the article can be fixed by regular editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Kill screen

Kill screen (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)

original research. Couldn't find any good sources that used the term. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Larry - the source is about a TV show, and not about this subject
NinjaRobotPirate - "I found simple dicdef" ... "and there's a casual mention" - please read
WP:VRS
Ash666 - no sources supplied
Mark viking -
"tvtropes.org, which while not a reliable source itself," - and being a
self-published source
, is unsuitable.
digra.org - what makes this a reliable source?
"Encyclopedia of video games" - this would be a good source to use. However, the term does not appear on the page supplied
blog.utest.com - what makes this a reliable source?
I'm sorry if I've upset anyone by declaring their favourite term is actually completely
blow the whole thing up and write a new article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
In your examples only the Rogers book comes anything near what I would call significant coverage at being more than a sentence. As you can see from our policies, that is what is required for an article. Without those, it can have a redirect to perhaps
AfC submission, I would not hesitate to decline it. If you wish, I can rewrite the entire article using all the sources supplied. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Template:Facepalm advises, Its use as an expression of abuse, mockery, or for the denigration of others is unacceptable.

Regarding the sources,

  1. tvtropes.org - as mentioned, not a reliable source, but it decisively refutes your claim of a
    Made up term
    .
  2. digra.org - DiGRA is the association for academics and professionals who research digital games and associated phenomena. The author of the paper is a professor at the University of Montreal. It's an authoritative source, per
    WP:A
    .
  3. Apparently my cut and paste of the GBooks link didn't work, sorry about that. Kill screen is mentioned two places in the Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, Volume 1: page 70, second column, there is a paragraph on kill screens in Donkey Kong and Pac-man, and page 473, second column, there is paragraph describing the kill screen bug at level 256 for Pac-man.
  4. The documentary
    The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters
    is the secondary source in this case. The blog was quoted merely to back up my assertion that kill screens are discussed in the film.
Along with other sources found by my fellow editors, my keep recommendation stands. --Mark viking (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this example, the facepalm was used as an expression of self-abuse and mockery (in as much as I'd found some of the sources everyone else had and considered them insufficient to keep the article). Now, I'm not really a cantankerous old sod, and my mind is prone to changing with convincing arguments. Some convincing counter arguments are now coming out of the woodwork. I have !voted "keep" on several AfDs while simultaneously improving the article (it's called the
Heymann Standard), and I would universally recommend everyone to do the same. That's why my user page says "Reliable sources - kills all AfDs. Dead." It's also why the article now has three more reliable sources in it than before the AfD started. I know "AfD isn't cleanup", but if you can cleanup during the AfD, you should! Be cool, people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Anyone can expand a full article out of a redirect with additional sources. It doesn't require admin intervention. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that's denying that there are already valid sources, even if they aren't in the article yet. What's wrong with the current stub that you created? Ansh666 19:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I want to check the content, expand the article to C class, change my !vote to Keep and close the thread! But I want to check the sources first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not answering my question. What's wrong with the current stub that you created? Ansh666 21:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable term, as others have shown. I restored some valid content the nominator deleted. Don't do that. You don't need sources in this article, if it links to where the sources are at in the main article. Dream Focus 19:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't need sources in this article" A number of high profile policies and guidelines, not least
WP:NPOV suggest otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:37, 17 October 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. KTC (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dumisani dube

Dumisani dube (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)

Written as a lawyer advertisement, autobiography of a person with little notability. Binko71100 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like a resume. I'm also concerned that the article was created by user:Dumisanidube; sounds like a COI. Many of the references were invalid. I checked a number of the working ones, and there was nothing indicating notability (little more than a quote from the article subject). There are a fair number of hits in books and scholar, but I can't tell if it's the same person; when I add 'lawyer' to the search, almost all of the the hits disappear. If better sources were provided, I might change my vote.--Larry (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 October 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.

WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

UCSI University

UCSI 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)

Unreferenced since at least February 2012 Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a substantial multi-campus university. Universities are important institutions and have long been regarded as notable. We keep degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet
    WP:ORG. Being unreferenced is not a ground for deletion rather than a spur to improvement. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:36, 12 October 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) 21:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lufthansa Flight 4043

Lufthansa Flight 4043 (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 aviation incident which does not pass the

WP:AIRCRASH, it should not even be mentioned at Lufthansa#Accidents and incidents, so a redirect does not make any sense, either. For the last three years, the article had indeed been only a redirect. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 12, I was advised to re-establish the content, with possible subsequently filing an AfD, which I've hereby done.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...I'm literally speechless that this made it into an article. This kind of thing happens all the time, it's literally the sort of thing that only makes it into any sort of attention because the alternative is covering a paint-drying contest. There are zero gNews hits, zero Google hits that aren't Wikimirrors, what we have here is a failure of
    notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete (edit conflict) - The article's grammar is rather hard to read through, but the linked PDF indicates that, basically: the plane was not given take-off clearance, some vehicles were on the runway, the pilots made a mistake and took off anyway, but absolutely nothing happened. No injuries, no deaths, just an out-of-order take off that has no lasting notability. Chris857 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    WP:AIRCRASH. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 October 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. KTC (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Szabó

AfDs for this article:
Roland Szabó (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)

Though he technically passes

WP:NSPORT that says that not all articles that meet the criteria must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 October 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. Will speedily restore if he becomes an MEP. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Carthy

Matt Carthy (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

talk) 16:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
If the subject came here to promote his candidacy, he's not a low-profile person. There is other coverage of him besides the stories about the diplomatic incident, so the first condition doesn't apply. —rybec 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Candidacy is not evidence of notability.
talk) 07:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual
describes high-profile people (emphasis added):

Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee.

—rybec 08:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made clear what point you wish to be understood in your latest comment, posted in response to me. I have not discussed high- or low-profiles, so it seems off the point. Furthermore,
talk) 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with User:O'Dea that essay is just an opinion piece and is irrelevant. What does User:Rybec mean by if the article was created to promote Carthy's candidacy? From the original article: "Matt believes it is time for a change in representation for the North West constituency. He wants to shake things up and believes the EU parliament should not be used as a retirement home for former TDs but rather as platform to stand up for the Irish people. If elected to the EU parliament he will use it as a forum to stand up against austerity; against red tape and bureaucracy; for investment and jobs and for fair agriculture policies that support the family farm." This has since been removed but it proves the original intent of the article creator. Also, Carthy has been a local councillor since 1999 yet the article was only created since he received the nomination to run for his party at the 2014 EP election.
talk) 17:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It should have been clear what my last two comments were about. They were in response to Snappy's statement that "Also the sources cites mostly relate to an incident with the Israeli envoy, which falls under

WP:BLP, but feel free to explain why it, or my estimation of Carthy as a high-profile person, is wrong. —rybec 19:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

He is a local councillor with some minor hits in google due to his membership of Sinn Fein and their stance on Israeli issues. He is low profile because none of those links are about him personally, he is just mentioned in passing. He has not been the subject of any article in national sources.
talk) 18:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]


  • Comment: I'd be inclined to go with Delete. As mentioned above it fails
    WP:Politician
    . However there might be an argument for keeping it for the moment. Little point in deleting an article, then having to recreate it if he winds up becoming an MEP.

CivisHibernius (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted and he becomes an MEP then an undelete request can be made, then an admin restores the last version of it.
talk) 18:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of
talk) 03:11, 19 October 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. KTC (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carter (writer)

Chris Carter (writer) (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:NAUTHOR. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 October 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. (

SNOW). A merge discussion can be performed on an article talk page, if so desired. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 21:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

2013 Nobel Peace Prize

2013 Nobel Peace Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no content to the article. it simply has a lead explaining what is on the nobel peace prize page (and a coup-le fo wikilinks) and a bunch of reactions, which can go onto the OPCW page in mentioning its award. There is nothing on the Award itself, which would really not have anything except maybe an anlysis of a speech which would in turn be PVO to put a certain analysis on (the links can go on the OPCW page). Dont see how this warrants its own page. Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? This sounds like a merge proposal disguised as a deletion propsal. What is it, and of It is deletion, what is the concrn? Notability? Immaturity? --L.tak (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see anything wrong here. The former Nobel Peace Prizes each have their own article. The subject has no shortage of notability. It could perhaps be expanded, but it's not a reason for deletion. {C  A S U K I T E  T} 15:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indisputably notable, already covered extensively in reliable sources worldwide, and of obvious historical significance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 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 speedily deleted by

CSD G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Standard-setting

Standard-setting (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)

Contested PROD. reason was: "An intriguingly vague essay consisting of verbiage interspersed with some references. It appears to be

WP:OR" Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, I'm not exactly sure why this page is up for deletion. Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reason 2: It is not an notable entry WP:NO.

  • I now referenced two sources direclty in the beginning of the article to standard-setting as a notable topic. Hopefully this helps.

Possible reason 1: I referenced some Dutch research articles and books. Do English Wikipedia pages not like Dutch references?Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

  • Some standard setting methods truly originate from Dutch scholars and I try to include references to their original publications.
  • I removed one reference to contained both the English and Dutch title of the article.


Possible reason 2: I'm still working quite hard on the page, so it is not actually finished. Can that be the problem?Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, given the critique my English is too poor at this point. It needs quite some work to turn it into acceptable English (I will strive for Oxford English!)

Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reason 3: I copy-paste some of the text to literal from other sources? Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

  • OK, so this needs more work.
  • So, is it better to prepare the article outside of Wikipedia and then (when really finished) put it into Wikipedia?

Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the use of Wikipedia as a source, every tutor looks at Wikipedia with a "Yes, it's an interesting starting place, but can never be an authority" view. If you are creating a teacher's guide then Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Fiddle Faddle 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, interesting this talk page. OK, so it must not be a teachers's guide style article. I think it is not. I really intend it to be a encyclopedic article, but do not seem to succeed. Sdraaijer (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC). I will take your comments seriously Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the issue is that English is not your mother language, so this may be hard for you to achieve, but, if you can show that the topic is notable (read
WP:OR) then the article will survive. Other people will see that it is being discussed for deletion, too, so may join in. Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, thanks. I will try and do this and try to find and use the Deletion Discussion pages.Sdraaijer (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC). Found it. Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally: I will retire the article and work further in my sandbox untill it is improved sufficiently. Sdraaijer (talk) 16:07, 12 October 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) 21:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web App Generator for Enterprise

Web App Generator for Enterprise (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)

WP:GHITS except for this and one other Wikipedia page edited by the same author, for either "Web App Generator for Enterprise" or "Web App Generator Enterprise". —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I understand the general caveats over using Google hits, but for a piece of software, of course, if there were sources one would expectthem predominately to be online ones. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Potential G11 article, furthermore, dependent on a non-existent article: "Web App Generator for Enterprise is an enterprise edition of the WAG Web App Generator SaaS platform." {C  A S U K I T E  T} 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 October 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.

WP:SK1: withdrawn by nominator with no opposing !votes. The Bushranger One ping only 16:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

DLD (software)

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. Former GNU package with a very limited audience. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that I didn't find those. The former seems to be a proper source with 121 citations. The latter only mentions dld in passing, but maybe I can find a second source among those citations. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - withdrawing my own nomination. The GNU website together with one well-cited paper are just enough to establish notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:47, 15 October 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayes++

Bayes++ (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 piece of software. Mentioned a few times in the academic literature according to GScholar, and also only a few times on the web according to Google. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully certain whether it should pass WP:BIO, as it is not a biographical article... I don't see much puffery either. Nonetheless....
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent - As the original author of the article in 2005, I thought the library was going to gain popularity. However, development seem to have ceased for the last year (based on Git history), and the library seem to have negligible impact in the scientific literature. I therefore understand the arguments for deleting the article. Fredrik Orderud (talk) 17:35, 13 October 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. KTC (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Business Management System

Unified Business Management System (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 article subject does not covered in reliable sources, i. e. this subject fails

WP:N Bezik (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 October 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 Withdrawn. (

WP:NAC) JJ98 (Talk) 07:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Cisco Field

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No new ballpark has never broken ground for the Oakland Athletics, including San Jose or Oakland, all nothing but speculation. JJ98 (Talk) 07:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 07:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 07:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Touch 360

Turbo Touch 360 (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)

PROD contested with "remove deletionism". This appears to be a third-party video game controller with little to no assertion of notability, and fails the

WP:GNG. Doubtful this content could be merged or redirected elsewhere. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G3. The Bushranger One ping only 13:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruckus Law

Ruckus Law (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,

WP:MADEUP Rhododendrites (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 12 October 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.

WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Favorite betrayal criterion

AfDs for this article:
Favorite betrayal criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete
    references section has ever been published. Markus Schulze 09:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 September 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 5 October 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) 03:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this article is non-notable and original research. This article had already been deleted twice in the past. The only reason why this article hadn't been deleted the other three times is that the supporters of this article were canvassing outside of Wikipedia. See e.g. this mail. Markus Schulze 14:05, 13 October 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.

Note: This was discussed here and undeleted. Homunq (࿓) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Line (comics)

First Line (comics) (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 fictional group does not establish

plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 October 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) 03:07, 12 October 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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 13:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Brind

Julian Brind (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)

Despite the two excellent obits referenced, this gentleman was only remembered in them for being the wine buyer for a supermarket chain. There is no true notability in the WIkipedia sense. Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I only created and started writing this article an hour ago and had just stopped for lunch. Do you not think I should be allowed to write the article first before its nominated for deletion! I take it the reviewer involved has done their research!

Gomach (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • THis is nto a fast process. If you can show he is notable except for one thing, show it. Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of our biographical articles are about people who are notable for one occupation. Where do you get this idea that people have to have two strings to their bows to be notable? Your continual making up of non-existent requirements in your deletion nominations is becoming disruptive.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 October 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) 03:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's current discussion elsewhere about whether someone with one major-paper obit and other passing mentions should be considered notable and we seem to be leaning toward "yes". Surely someone with multiple such obits would be considered notable. Stalwart111 06:01, 12 October 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

World of Eberron. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Religions of Eberron

Religions of Eberron (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 does not establish

plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 12 October 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. KTC (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEGG Cancer

KEGG Cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

talk) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already mentioned in the KEGG article. Maybe worth another sentence or two in there. But agree this one is not notable for its own article until there are plenty of other publications that refer to it, and the base KEGG article, currently tagged as a stub, grows too large. Not yet. W Nowicki (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to KEGG as a plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:37, 20 October 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) 21:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Maestro (wrestler)

The Maestro (wrestler) (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)

Lovingly maintained autobio by a marginal pro "wrestler" and small-time actor, who seems to sockpuppet as well under at least two names plus (apparently) IP edits. Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Subject is no Hulk Hogan, but regularly worked for several years on international mainstream TV (
    WP:RUBBISH). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a serious conflict of interest going on here, and we need to take steps to fix that. However, I agree with Hulk that that is a separate issue and the subject itself is notable enough for an article.LM2000 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in order to
    blow it up and start over. An alternative would be to block the editor, but that would be draconian. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is notable enough for an article and I don't think issues with the subject trying to inflate his importance is enough of a problem to require deletion of the entire article.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 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. No prejudice towards redirection or mentions in appropriate articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gauntlett

Daniel Gauntlett (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 don't think anybody can seriously argue that this person is/was in any way notable, even in his death. The event (i.e. his demise) may be notable, but that is unproven. An Early Day Motion and a few minor soundbites exchanged between the sponsoring MP and a poverty NGO are not sufficient to make for notability, IMHO.  Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared for a surprise; I'm about to seriously argue that this person, or rather his death, was notable. (as has been suggested by
LASPO legislation (see articles). So...I hope changing the article to be about the event, rather than the person, would cover your issues? PhilMacD (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If, as has been suggested above by PhilMacD, this article is renamed Death of Daniel Gauntlett, I believe it will be an extremely important document, not just for future generations, but for many people in Britain today.

The decisions made by neighbours and the police and Daniel Gauntlett himself were all affected by laws we are all governed by. Those people's choices all serve to raise serious questions about our priorities today. According to all the news reports, Daniel Gauntlett was told by the police not to break into the derelict, condemned house. He chose to obey those instructions and instead slept outside in -2°C temperature exacerbated by wind chill. As a result he died.

Furthermore, again according to the news reports, neigbours called the police and reported his presence at the house. Had they not called the police and offered him shelter, some food and a warm drink and a dry blanket instead, again, maybe he might have survived that night.

All these questions are extremely difficult to answer, but they are at the core of what British society is about in the second decade of the 21st Century. David Cameron says he believes in a "Big Society" and that "We're all in it together". If he's sincere, why was Daniel Gauntlett allowed to be left out in the freezing night to die?

This is the debate opened up by the death of Daniel Gauntlett. If we are all in it together, who killed Daniel Gauntlett? Now I'm going to surprise you. I did - because I voted Conservative. I believed David Cameron was sincere. I believed David Cameron's Big Society included people like Daniel Gauntlett. I believed "all" meant ALL, not just those with a roof over their heads.

On 2nd March 2013 Mark McGowan posted this tribute to Daniel Gauntlett <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb07UL3olGs> It has been viewed 14,570 times

On 11th May 2013, three years after David Cameron became Prime Minister, just before I faced the repossession of my home, meaning I would become homeless, I posted this version of Mark McGowan's video tribute to Daniel Gauntlett <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I54-ZPd9tV8> A few weeks later I received a very emotional message from Daniel Gauntelett's daughter, thanking me for posting the video. I was able to tell her that her father’s story helped inspire me to fight to keep my home. And I did. I was lucky.

This is just one example of how Daniel Gauntelett’s death has had a positive effect.

Daniel Gauntlett was a real human being. His passing was a tragedy. It has affected many many people, most of whom never met him. Daniel Gauntlett's death represents one of the most fundamental issues facing British people today, one which after being Prime Minister for over three years, David Cameron has not even begun to address. If we can remember people who die in foreign wars, we can surely remember one who died equally needlessly as a result of how society obeys rules, regardless of the consequences to those who, for whatever reason are not counted as part of the "Big Society". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateFKR (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The topic as given clearly non-notable, a news story that a homeless person died. However the larger story might be notable as
    talk) 06:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would argue it either needs to be kept, or needs a big chunk of further coverage in the
WP:NPOV. PhilMacD (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Since the article was created Vice (magazine) and The Independent have quoted the case. I think we have to watch for POV overlap here; the debate over whether squatting is right or wrong shouldn't impinge on whether an article should be kept on Wikipedia.PhilMacD (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- The event is notable, not the man, and I would support a rename and a change in the direction of the article to consider the event and surrounding circumstances. There seems to be enough information to separate it from the Anti-Squatting Law article, and therefore should be distinct. Jack (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename -- Per Jackhynes. A homeless man isn't notable enough to deserve a page named after him. Instead, we are waiting for valuable expansion without undue weight. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the death of one homeless person is by no means notable. In large cities this probably happens on a daily basis. Otherwise we'll have an article for every car accident, suicide, etc. that gets reported in media. -Zanhe (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Any useful information is already contained within the article for Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Outside of that context, even the event he's linked to isn't particularly notable in and of itself, it's the specific legislation that's notable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 12 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black magic (caffeine)

Black magic (caffeine) (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 only reference for this article does not include any reference whatsoever to "black magic", it is only a basic caffeine data sheet. Google results for "black magic caffeine" are instruction teks for how to "free base" caffeine from coffee. Not notable. flaming () 05:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I suspect the real source for the article is this video. It's a silly argument for drug legalization, an illustration of how a recreational drug can be made from material you can find around the house. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) SOCK[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability PianoDan (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no sources specified that actually mention the subject. The name seems to have originated from an article/video [12], but it's not notable.--Larry (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeah, I saw this while re-writing a related article and was going to nominate it for deletion for all the reasons outlined by the nominator. I didn't get around to it but I'm glad Flaming did. Stalwart111 02:56, 13 October 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) 21:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoBYO.com

GoBYO.com (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: very little coverage (mostly from blogs) Prof. Squirrel (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real coverage from reliable or mainstream sources. Fails
    WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the clear lack of reliable, third party sources to verify basic notability. Steven Walling • talk 03:30, 14 October 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windbag

Windbag (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)

Dictionary definition. I do not see a good way for this article to ever progress beyond a dicdef. Wiktionary already has an entry on this word, so there would be no use in a transwiki. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No redirect target that I can see. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictionary definition. As for "Welsh Windbag," Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ---------> /// Carrite (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a dictionary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:
Nemesis (Transformers) (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 does not establish

plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I guess this falls under G4 for speedy deletion per the old AfD. TTN (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true.
WP:CSD#G4 states that G4 only applies when the article is A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This page has undergone quite a lot of change since the 2010 AfD. AfD is the appropropriate venue. --Mark viking (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep per research that suggests this nomination is a case of

WP:TROLLING. --131.123.123.136 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I've stricken the above opinion posted by a banned user—see the most recent SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive. Deor (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable independent sources exist for this topic. --Simone 17:21, 1 October 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) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject seems to be focal enough to the series as to just toe the line on this side of deletion. Article obviously needs work, though. Human.v2.0 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to
    notability for this to be a standalone article, however as part of the list it is fully appropriate. This one is borderline as Human.v2.0 points out, however I don't believe the coverage is sufficient to avoid a merge. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:49, 14 October 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. KTC (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luxiole

Luxiole (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 article and the two others in this nomination cannot reasonably be considered notable enough for a standalone article. It is almost entirely

✉ 02:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Elle Ciel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angel Frames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (all three of the proposed) per nom. Unreferenced, not notable and inaccessible due to in-universe style. JTST4RS (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTPLOT but mostly because of lack of reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfish (digital marketing agency)

Jellyfish (digital marketing agency) (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 page is so highly promotional that it would require a fundamental rewrite. All but one source is either the company's own publications or does not offer significant coverage. The one source that is seemingly okay is a press release by a bank which does business with this company. I'm not claiming that this company doesn't meet WP:Notability (organizations and companies), only that if it is, it would be best to scrap this article entirely and start over from scratch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly promotional. I'd probably speedy this as
    G11, to be honest. There are no substantive, third party sources whatsoever. Steven Walling • talk 03:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Article includes several reliable, independent references from The Drum magazine, Visibility magazine and Business Week. Thesestairs (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The drum reference - questionable independence, does not provide anything close to
    lagging economic indicator is for the economy - you have to be noted (i.e. with "significant coverage") by other, reliable independent publications first. Then and only then can an article be created. Remember also that by far most companies and organizations do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 15 October 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. KTC (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chowk Kumharanwala Level II Flyover

Chowk Kumharanwala Level II Flyover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bit of coverage on cost and whatnot is to be expected for a structure like this, but that doesn't make this flyover pass the GNG. The same goes for the others in this city that have articles written on them--they are routine structures, some with routine coverage and some with nothing at all. Also nominated:

Yousuf Raza Gillani Flyover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pul Moj Darya Flyover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nishtar Chowk Flyover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sher Shah Interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Drmies (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. The "coverage on cost and whatnot" happens to be very in-depth and easily demonstrates passing
    WP:GNG. Just because projects of this scale (approximately $40 billion) is "expected" to get coverage, doesn't invalidate that coverage. As a matter of fact, it's ever the more reason for it's demonstration of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 12 October 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.

WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Spittor

Spittor (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 character does not establish

plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 26 September 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) 15:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octane (Transformers)

Octane (Transformers) (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 character does not establish

plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 September 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) 15:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 12 October 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 Kit houses in Michigan. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Houses of Ypsilanti, Michigan

Kit Houses of Ypsilanti, Michigan (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 don't think it would be appropriate to list a bunch of addresses of private homes on WP even if the subject were encyclopedic. PROD removed by creator. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (see further commentary below) - if Ypsilanti really is well-known as a centre of kit home construction or something then that (provided it is
    directory of local homes is unencyclopedic and a BLP concern. Stalwart111 15:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Weak Delete (
Kit Houses of Ann Arbor, Michigan, however, presents sources that make me think that that might be notable (though it has similar issues to Ypsi). Chris857 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The kit houses of Ypsilanti (and Ann Arbor) are relevant to the urban development and architecture of the early 20th century in these towns. The listing of the addresses of the homes presents no more of a privacy concern than the listing of any other significant architectural feature in public or private ownership. If this is a relevant argument than none of the homes of Frank Llyod Wright, listed here, should be allowed as many of them are still private residences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FLW buildings are iconic, many of them are considered notable in their own right. Our own article suggests more than 100,000 kit homes were built accross the United States. Do you plan to list every one? If someone buys a FLW home, it's more than likely they understand they are buying a piece of architectural history and that their address will be listed in a good many places like reference books and Wikipedia. I don't think someone buying one of 100,000 kit homes would expect the same. Besides which, being relevant to the history of these towns does not necessarily make them notable. Stalwart111 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for deleting the page was that it listed the addresses of the homes, some of which are private residences. The same is true of the FLW houses. Is there a Wikipedia policy against listing addresses? Or is that just the arbitrary position of a particular user being used to justify deleting the page?
Also, while there have been claims that over 100,000 homes were built across the US, the number of homes remaining is much less than that. The importance of these homes in the context of these communities is likely more relevant than examples like FLW homes. FLW homes, while often notable, tell little to nothing about the historical development and architecture of these communities. In comparison, the presence of kit homes within a community tell a great deal about the history of these communities and their continued presence are notable examples of an era of architecture and industrial production in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need reliable sources (
WP:V) that. You need to demonstrate that they are notable enough in that context to justify a separate article. That there are kit homes in that location is not evidence in and of itself that those kit homes are notable in that context. The inclusion of addresses isn't a reason to delete the article (because that content can be removed via editing anyway and the nominator suggested the subject was unencyclopedic) but it's worth noting that even the FLW list you cite above doesn't including individual addresses - some of the articles themselves include a street name (without a number) but going through a random sample, I haven't actually found a specific address yet. Stalwart111 23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
All of the FLW homes that I reviewed are geo-mapped which is effectively no different than listing the address. If you review the proposals for deletion by 'Roscelese', its based on the listing of private addresses as if that violates some Wikipedia policy, which you have acknowledge is not the case. It also appears that 'Roscelese' is using the claim that these articles are unencyclopedic as a justification for deletion when the real reason seems to be the objection to the listing of addresses. 'Roscelese' even made derogatory comments about the sourcing of the articles when the authors of those articles included a couple of experts in the field who have been published in numerous local and national publications along with being published authors themselves. That point is more relevant to the effort by 'Roscelese' to have the Ann Arbor page deleted when that article is well-sourced but highlights what appears to be a personal bias which shouldn't be part of the discussion about deleting the article.Kithousefans (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't see any "derogatory" comments but discussing sourcing is fairly routine given we require sourcing to verify content. At the moment, the article in question has one source - an article written by a local who lives in one of the houses. That source isn't particularly valuable for verifying much of what is in the article or for conferring notability on the subject. Listing addresses might be objectionable but a lack of notability is the bigger problem. Stalwart111 01:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was made in the request to delete the Ann Arbor article. Questioning the sourcing based on the publication doesn't raise confidence that the review is being done in an unbiased or an informed way. The Ypsi sourcing was not written by a "local who lives in one of the houses" but was published by the local historical society and includes its own sourcing in the article. As far as listing addresses, I've found another example of that with the list of Lustron homes that not only lists addresses but owner names as well!Kithousefans (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From that source:

When we purchased the home, it appeared to be a dark red brick due to the siding. During the five years we have lived there, our changes have been mostly landscaping and interior...

The local historical society might have then elected to publish it but we would still need much better sourcing, preferably some that demonstrates this might be considered a notable topic
outside of a particular local area. And that statement isn't "derogatory", it's based on Wikipedia policy. Stalwart111 01:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank your for the clarification. None the less, the article itself contains several citations beyond the author's on words and the work of the local historical society. Also, I haven't seen any Wikipedia policy that discounts works by noted authorities because they appear in a local publication.Kithousefans (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but 2/3 are citations to other local coverage. The only one that might be considered okay is the preface of America's Favorite Homes by Robert Schweitzer and Michael W. R. Davis (both locals, published by a Michigan university). Reviewing that, the section that mentions the subject (kit homes in Ypsi) relates to a single class that one taught and the other attended in 1981 which seems to have inspired them to write the book. Reading it, it doesn't really discuss the subject but talks about architecture in Ypsi in general, some of which was later identified as being related to kit home construction. Like I said, it might be okay, but it's not very strong and isn't of much value in building an article. Stalwart111 02:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your suggestion of consolidation these into a Michigan-based article is worth considering. That said, Schweitzer is a nationally-known expert on kit homes, having been published in national magazines (including American Bungalow), and "America's Favorite Homes" has been cited in numerous scholarly works. The fact that he's local to Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and that he did much of his initial research in those communities, is treated as something that detracts from the value of his work when the opposite is true, it highlights the importance of those homes to the topic. This would be like diminishing the scholarly work of an author on the US Presidents because the author happens to live in Washington DC and has their work published by a nearby university. Strange. [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kit houses in Michigan with this draft as a base. There aren't enough sources, I think, to support articles about kit houses in individual towns. But the State of Michigan had a particularly notable role in the development of the kit house industry in the United stated during the 20s and 30s. I'd be keen to know if Chris857 would support that solution and I've started a conversation with the nominator on his talk page. Stalwart111 04:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 12 October 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. All the (policy-based) Delete !votes correctly indicate the need for independent sources, but then

AFD is not for cleanup" Zad68 02:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Doc Childre

Doc Childre (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 cites no external sources whatsoever to show the subject's notability - only the author's own website and books. I was tempted to speedy-delete, but he does have one book published by an affiliate of HarperCollins. On balance, though, without sources, I don't think this meets

WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I noticed this on NawlinWiki's talk page, and my first reaction was that this is a puff piece. All the sources were written by Childre. I looked on Google for sources, and everything seems to be press release, commercial, or forum/blog in nature. Chris857 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's transparently commercial, basically an ad. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- need independent sources. Lesion (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doc Childre is the
    WP:AUTHOR
    #3 "The person has created .. a well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
Other Sources NewsBank shows 34 newspaper articles. Most of them are mentions of Childre's books and/or think tank though not dedicated reviews. A couple examples:
  • Gracie Bonds Staples. "Living with your choices Course of action", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 30, 2010. Quote: "Doc Childre, the internationally renowned stress expert, said.."
  • Portia Berrey, "The heart has its own brain.literally." Denver Examiner, September 21, 2009. Summarizes Childre's position on the "brain in the heart".
  • Media sources at the HearthMath website has 100s of "in the media" sources archived (I have not looked through them for reliable sources about ChildreP).
--
talk) 20:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I've dropped these into the references section for now so they don't get lost. --
talk) 01:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should vote on the topic, not the current state of the article. Are there enough sources to make a 1-sentence stub? See sources I listed above. --
talk) 16:33, 12 October 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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 13:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Ann Friedrich

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deleted as A7 and then listed at DRV where some sources were found. The deleting admin consents to restoration subject to an AFD. So here we are. As I closed the DRV I am neutral.

Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google news archive search shows multiple possibly-independent-of-each-other reliable news sources with articles from January 2005, March 2005, April 2009, and other dates. Non-paywalled articles are here (The News, New Glasgow, 4/4/09), here (CBC News, 3/9/05), and here (CBC News, 3/15/05). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The embryonic stub article was effectively blanked before another editor requested speedy deletion. This is what it had looked like previously. The DRV was here. Thincat (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of this person's modus operandi she's got a lot of names. Good search terms include Melissa Ann Weeks, Millie Weeks, Melissa Ann Stewart and Melissa Ann Shephard.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 October 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) 01:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the crystal-clear consensus already formed. Why the relisting?
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Free Baptist Church

Evangelical Free Baptist Church (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)

Minor religious denomination/sect with no claim to notability attributed to a reliable source. I could not find any evidence online that it actually exists as an actual denomination, and not just an individual church. No substantial coverage could be found about the group from the subject itself, let alone from any reliable sources independent of the subject. Tdl1060 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Standard practice is to keep denominations, which invariably satisfy
    WP:NONPROFIT. Clicking the "news" link above finds several references to churches within this denomination, and to its world conference. Google searching finds many more churches within this denomination. Cleanup and sourcing is clearly required, but the EFBC are a notable worldwide fundamentalist group. -- 101.119.14.26 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep -- This is a denomination, not a local church. It is not a satisfactory article, and certainly needs improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. But is there any reference that can be found to support the claim that it is actually a denomination, or for that matter even an actual church with members, services, etc?--Tdl1060 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was the implication that I drew from the text of the article, such as "The group was formed by churches ..." (plural). It may be a small denomination, but a denomination none the less. I have no evidence other than the WP text before me. One ought to believe that the content is true, until the reverse is proved. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is no source for the claim, one shouldn't assume that the content is true, and an unverified claim should not form the basis for an article subject's claim to notability. One does not need to prove that unsourced content is untrue for it to be removed from wikipedia. The burden of proof lies with the one adding the content.--Tdl1060 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you are essentially saying is that one should assume that anything that someone writes on Wikipedia is true until the reverse is proven. The only evidence that has been found to exist, to show that this is an actual denomination, is that at one point in time someone wrote on Wikipedia that it was. I have yet to see any evidence that there is even a single church affiliated with this group.--Tdl1060 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete or userfy until such time that its status as a denomination of more than a few churches can be shown to be reflected in reliable sources OR it otherwise meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Can't decide: Recently added reference put me on the edge between "keep" and "delete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sourcing there is a source listed at the end, so it is unfair to say that anything in the article is not sourced without going to the considerable effort of obtaining a copy of that source and reading through it or making a reasonable guess that a source with that title would not have the information that is in the article. Having said that, the source is NOT a
    WP:RS so it's useless for determining notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • For the claims in question, that source clearly violates
      WP:SELFPUB in that it is used as the only source in the article and it is used to support important claims that are not covered by any other source. Furthermore, there is virtually no way for anyone to verify whether the claims in the article are supported by that source, and since there were significant changes to the article since the initial edit where that was given as the source, it is highly questionable that the source (if it indeed actually exists) reflects the current content of the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Additionally
      WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." One should not merely assume that something is true simply because someone has stated on Wikipedia that it is, without presenting any verifiable sources to support their claim.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment. The denomination certainly exists. It is listed in the U.S.Religious Landscape Survey -- Religious Affiliation: Diverse and Dynamic by the Pew Forum, February 2008 [15]; and in Religion in America: A Directory (James V. Geisendorfer, ed., Brill Archive, 1983, p. 62); and in US Government lists of tax-exempt organisations ([16]). I am surprised that the nom did not find these sources. There are also Evangelical Free Baptist groups in India and the UK, although it is not clear whether they are affiliated with the US denomination. -- 101.119.15.179 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I am not disputing that the organization exists. I know that there is an organization based out of a small house in North Aurora, Illinois by this name. What I am disputing is the notion that it is a denomination by any traditional sense of the word, since there does not appear to be a single church formally affiliated with this organization.--Tdl1060 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evangelical Free Baptist Churches certainly exist around the world. The organisation based in North Aurora, Illinois also exists. It seems that the relationship between the two is unclear. I have rewritten the article to focus on the denomination. A merge to Free Will Baptist might be a good solution. -- 101.119.14.213 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would help editors to evaluate the sources in the article if they were not deleted. -- 101.119.15.204 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article as of 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC) is significantly different and with completely different references than it was at the start of this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:54, 8 October 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) 01:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks to be a minor sect but their existance is verifiable and they're certainly large enough having 20+ churches at one point to be considered notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:35, 20 October 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 Deleted

WP:CSD#G7 by Lankiveil. -- KTC (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Fame of Cyprus

Fame of Cyprus (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)

Almost everything in here is speculation about a

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 September 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,
talk) 02:10, 5 October 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,
talk) 01:47, 12 October 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. KTC (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Striker

Shadow Striker (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 character does not establish

plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 September 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,
talk) 02:14, 5 October 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,
talk) 01:45, 12 October 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 13:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton H. Wallace

Clinton H. Wallace (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 can find no significant independent RS on this photographer/producer. Fails

WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 September 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,
talk) 02:17, 5 October 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,
talk) 01:45, 12 October 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.

WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Plantagon

Plantagon (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)

Re-creation of a previously deleted article. Plantagon is a small Swedish company with only a handful of employees that tries to exploit the long existing ideas of Vertical farming. Most sources in the article are selfpublished, either directly (the company website) or indirectly (mynewsdesk.com etc). The company spends a lot of energy marketing themselves and their CEO (Hans Hassle, an article that is almost exclusively edited by Hassle himself and Plantagon) but have very little success to show in their actual field of business. If the article had mainly showed existing installations, and proof of them being an established company in their field, I wouldn't oppose having the article, but since it's almost exclusively about what the company plans to do, and talk about vertical farming in general, I don't feel it belongs here. Because Wikipedia is not a place for marketing products or ideas. Thomas.W talk to me 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - and I will take a closer look at the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 6 October 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,
talk) 01:44, 12 October 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) 21:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Yuji

Beijing Yuji (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 am concerned that this may not meet the criteria for inclusion, does not appear to be a noted company - establish only in 2005, I cannot locate noted third-party information on the company, internet searches reveal only a plethora of indexing websites, the company's own website, and their facebook page. I may be missing something, so want to open it up to the community at AfD. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 September 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) 03:26, 5 October 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,
talk) 01:42, 12 October 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 Singers & Players. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War of Words (Singers & Players album)

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced affair. No evidence it ever made the charts. Fails

WP:NALBUMS The Banner talk 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 September 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,
Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 5 October 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,
talk) 01:36, 12 October 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_October_12&oldid=1142630693"