Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 16

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Is nothing more than his campaign platform. Redirect to
United States Senate election in Texas, 2012. Tiller54 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per established consensus for ordinary, unelected political candidates. Do make sure anything worthwhile, if there is anything worthwhile, has been merged, per Tiller54. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy did not even win his parties nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Fails
WP:POLITICIAN....William 12:18, 22 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 Cult of Reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess of Reason

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

)

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

Article is a stub with no references -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This AfD was first voiced at Talk:Cult_of_Reason#Atheist or deist. In short, it's a matter of undue weight: the festival "Goddess" figures are described well enough in the Cult article for what they really were – essentially, grandiose mascots. The concept simply doesn't merit an article of its own: giving it article namespace implies that there is more to the topic than there really is. It causes confusion in readers who might easily end up thinking that it was an actual deity, or that it played some deeper role in the Cult than it did. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It does seem that this and the Cult of Reason cannot, or at least should not, be covered separately and users are not served by the separation. But the Goddess is notable, however she is understood, and should be included in the Cult of Reason article. --AJHingston (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per my initial comment, and in accordance with both SteveStrummer and AJHingston, I think this article ought to be deleted, and the article namespace redirected to Cult of Reason. I apologize for the tardiness of this comment... I'm new to the AfD process. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:46, 25 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-691

)

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

This topic 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) 21:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe for the usual reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

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

Prodded; deprodded without reason or addressing concerns, which still apply: no indication of notability. No proper refs – both are to the book which can't be a RS about itself – and reads like the blurb from the back of the book, not encyclopaedic content. Ignoring this promotional content there's nothing that indicates it's at all notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "blurb from the back of the book" and left only one reference. The page now is on the yesterday state, and this article lived successfully in this state for many years before. Please remove nomination for deletion, which is not good for readers. I from my side will try to write in several days a standard article about this concrete book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry, using other many articles about other encyclopedias in Wikipedia, as examples. Also, I have read the Guide for deletion and understand the Wiki policy. Is this a way out? Thank you very much. Duplij (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a likely copyvio of a publisher's blurb, e.g,Powell's publisher comments. Accordingly, the prose seems purely promotional. I could find no news or reviews for this book. The books has generated 8 GScholar citations, which is negligible for an active field like supersymmetry and and string theory. In short, no notability based on either independent reliable sources or citations. The article has recently been edited by
WP:COI, all indicate that this should be deleted. Update As I was writing this, the copyvio was removed, so this criticism no longer applies. --Mark viking (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

1) Yes, I am the Editor-compiler of this book, but this is not a reason not to write about the book. Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry was written by 275 people, not by me only. This article in Wikipedia was not created by me, but I wanted only to improve it. And I can do it along the rules of Wikipedia. 2) About notability, there is some incorrectess in 2 orders of magnitude. Please have now a thorough look to GScholar - you can see 499 citations, which is much more than 8 !!!... 3) Also I know that the book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry was bought by many leading scientists privately, and it is on their tables for everyday use. I know that definitely, because I saw the book, during my visits, lectures and seminars in USA, France, Poland and Germany for many years. And this true use of the book is independent of any formal numbers. 4) Also all libraries of Universities which have Phys. and Math. Departments have Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry. There is no conflict of interests with anybody, if an article about Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry which will satisfy the rules, will be in Wikipedia. 5) If it will help to solve the situation positively, I can ask leading world specialists in supersymmetry to send you (to any e-address, which you give) a short 'independent' e-mail with support of a small article about 560 pages book in Wikipedia according to its rules. By the way, the Second Edition of Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry is planned for the next year. So this project is alive, developed and will be an effective and useful reference for many scientists worldwide, as all other Encyclopedias which are already described in Wikipedia. Thank you. Duplij (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update to your Update. If copyvo is not applied and the notability is explained, also there are no any COI, maybe you allow me to write a small article along the Wikipedia rules about the book for which I spent 10 best years of my life. To write such an article is also a hard task for several days. Please, understand me. Thank you. -- Duplij (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:COI to learn more about conflict of interest and how it is dealt with at WP. Finally, this discussion runs for seven days from initial posting, so don't feel this is a race against time. Other WP editors will also comment on this article until a consensus is reached. --Mark viking (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Hi, Mark. Thank you for your notes. We already wrote twice more text than the possible article under discussion. I try to reply. 1) The using of short title is not a "nonnotability". It is OK in science.2) Everybody knows, how the reviews are written. There are formal requests, and these reviews are usually made by formal agreements, they usually are weakly connected with real significance of a book. Everybody knows. My book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry is really used, and all scientists know it. When they use they do not have time to review, they work with it. The reviews are usually done by people who something far from the subject in reality. Therefore, this is also not an argument. 3) If somebody else will write about Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry, then it will be no COI, as I understood. Therefore, the first step, could you leave the article on its state writen by somebody else before my corrections, e.g on the date: 04:08, 9 January 2013‎ Addbot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (735 bytes). Then other people (not me) maybe will write a good wiki article which will satisfy all the requirements. So I ask you not to remove this term/article Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry for possible further extensions and writing - maybe up to 1 page of text. Thank you. --Duplij (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on it that is not a block on deletion. Rather if it is deleted then after you can request it is undeleted to your user space, where you and other editors can work on it for as long as you want, to try and fix the problems with it that caused it to be deleted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's see if I understand the conversation so far: the person supporting this article, apparently the author, cannot find any references which support
the book version) as defined by Wikipedia. Offering as proof "all scientists know it [is really used]" is precisely what is not allowed in Wikipedia. Perhaps it's a great book, but it fails notability.--Larry (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete The publisher's website references one review (P. D. F. Ion, Mathematical Reviews, Issue 2005 m)[1] but that's not enough to establish notability. It does appear to be occasionally cited by people, appears in bibliographies, and is held in many university libraries (see WorldCat). But it's still not quite notable. The lack of reliable, referenced information in the present article also suggests deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Please, not delete... 1) Yes, there exists a very good review by P.D.F. Ion in the highest level Mathematical Reviews of AMS. I have no access to its full version, but maybe you can. Please, read the full version. This is the most notable place, where a math book can be reviewed and the right highest place for "notability". 2) The book is cited not occasionally, but gives About 29,800 results (0.26 seconds) in Google search! 3) All University libraries have it. 4) The book is written by 275 professionals for professionals (who really work now in this subject and present concrete current and established results) including a Nobel Prize Winner Gerard 't Hooft. The Advisory Board consists of 23 Members, most of them are famous and noble scientists, Deans and inventors of new formulas named by their names (the same can be said about many of ordinary contributors). The Editor Warren Siegel is listed in Wikipedia, as a famous scientist. The Editor Jonathan Bagger is a Vice Provost at The Johns Hopkins University, a member of the National Research Council's Board on Physics and Astronomy and vice chair of the Energy Department/National Science Foundation High Energy Physics Advisory Panel. Is that quite notable? 5) It is obviously, that the article in this one sentence form is not a good reference.

I agree with the above positive ideas of JohnBlackburne.

Therefore, I ask you not to delete this entry, but allow me to prepare a standard wiki normal size article (obviously, not one sentence or resume copied from other place). When you agree, I will start this hard work, because it requires too much additional time and special efforts. I would be happy to collaborate with you in future sharing my knowledge and experience to improve your very important project Wikipedia. Thank you very much. --Duplij (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable; cited only 13 times. Fails
WP:NBOOK. -- 101.119.15.94 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I've searched the following commercial databases for "Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry" and found 0 hits: Gale
talk) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't see why a book gets an article if it isn't a famous work (like A Tale of Two Cities). Instead, this book seems like an appropriate reference to be cited in relevant articles. However, I don't feel strongly either way and prefer to let others decide about deletion. Zaslav (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete; I understand that this book is somewhat specialized, but it contains many interesting articles written by the most autoritative authors in the field of supersymmetry. As such, this reference is very important for all the people working in this particular field (R. Casalbuoni), 19 October 2013.151.41.72.234 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — 151.41.72.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete. This is a highly specialized encyclopedia. It will never have a lot of links. We have to support all kind of books, not just about pop music with big number of links. VodoRiz (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews/refs are here - no reasons to delete. I have observed that there are reviews from the top notable Mathematical Reviews and ZMath added. There exist no more higher places for any phys/math book to be reviewed. Also, there are many references from Wiki entries to this article. The text in the second box on the top of the entry "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and its consequence is not actual now, because all my text was removed, and changed were done by somebody else. Therefore, I am not a main contributor to this article at all. This article now is fully and independently being rewritten by other people in the framework of the WikiProject Books. This requires some time. Also, there are many votes for not to delete. Duplij (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken your second !vote; you only get to !vote once. As for references, i.e. links, from other articles, there are few, half of which you added – that is how I noticed this page. And the !votes not to delete are all from

single purpose accounts, i.e. editors (including yourself) who have made little or no other contribution to the encyclopaedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

- Sorry, you are not right: no editors are involved here, people use single purpose accounts for their own reasons. The other two SUSY editors are on the top of U.S. and world science, they are too notable and noble to be in such discussions. I am here openly and sincerely tring to develop your project Wikipedia. --Duplij (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Many independent researchers need this work to continue their research and many of us are not aware of this compilation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.248 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — 174.89.41.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.124.23 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the record is well written and deserves publication. The search for supersymmetry is a very important task for the years to come. The Editor of the book has done an excellent job for the community. Please "do not delete it".

Do not delete This is a specialised academic reference and under

wikipedias own notability criteria should be assessed differently from books for the general public. As recommended in the section on Academic and technical books, it is published by an academic publisher, is widely cited in academic articles, and is widely used by supersymmetry researchers. Also, its editors are themselves quite notable within the field.--Schrocat.academic (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This is a highly specialised reference book, it cannot be assessed using the same standards as books for the general public. 500 citations for such a technical book is no small number. Also it is very likely that once the book has been used as an entry point to the literature on some topic, authors prefer to cite the original works - it is the most sensible thing to do. It is a book of very high value containing contributions by many of the top scientists in the field. It definitely deserves to be recorded in Wikipedia. Yougeeaw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please save. I have this book and use it from time to time. It is useful just for me. I do not see any reason, why to delete the entry about it from Wikipedia. 37.52.150.109 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — 37.52.150.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Do not delete I was surprised to see that this book is being considered for deletion. I have the impression that the book is often in use, among practioners in supersymmetry. Why delete a big work which has proved to be so useful in the actual research community? 2.150.32.82 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — 2.150.32.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality in the Arab world

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

I was asked this in my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could we go ahead and delete this article? It has had no citations for years now, but no one has taken the initiative to delete it. Michipedian (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)"[reply]
Keep No, you can't go ahead and delete it. See
WP:NOEFFORT. Warden (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I was about to advocate Delete, seeing the excellent and comprehensive
talk) 00:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I have pinged

talk) 00:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

With regard to your statement I see a content fork here, one to be welcomed, not a POV fork, and certainly not a redundant content fork (a bad thing, those). The material is wholly different. The sole issue with it is that the lack of referencing leaves it vulnerable to a deletion discussion. Indeed, such a discussion is a wise discussion because of the lack of references. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork of the fairly excellent
LGBT in Islam. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the difference between Comment forks and POV forks is often misunderstood. Please see
Wikipedia:Content forking
. Content forks are valid and the wellspring from which new articles are made. The topic expands beyond the bounds of the initial article which constrains it, and we have a content fork, a good and expected thing. POV forks are deprecated because they are, simply put, and entirely different point of view on the same topic, regurgitating old material in a different guise. Those are a bad thing because they make the encyclopaedia appear to be more unreliable than it is.

Keep It is an unreferenced article, yes, and finding references might be hard because of the Arab apparent insistence that homosexuality (and thus bisexuality) either does not exist or is punishable by death. But it is not congruent with
WP:NOEFFORT seems to make sense here, though it may be that we need to blow it up, remove unreferencable material, and start again. I've dropped a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Bisexuality_in_the_Arab_world_is_in_danger_of_deletion to see if some editing muscle might be brought to bear. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Timtrent
talk 07:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of a valid deletion rationale aside, there...isn't really any content here. It's a few generalized paragraphs that are redundant to material elsewhere in the encyclopedia (the history of classification of sexual orientation, LGBT rights and penalties for homosexuality in Muslim countries), and it's all unreferenced. Basically, there's only one piece of information here, the bit about situational homosexuality due to sex segregation in these cultures. That might actually have enough sources out there for its own article, but that's not what the article professes to be about, it's unsourced, and the article on situational homosexuality is small enough anyway that it doesn't need a spin-out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now been able to add a reference. More are needed, of course they are, but that reference is, of itself, likely to show that the topic is notable. The article may need to be rewritten, but the topic has notability. I'm working to add more. Help woudl be received with gratitude. Fiddle Faddle 16:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename They mention Bisexuality, then homosexuality, and even pederasty. Bisexual means you are into men and women, not just men, or little boys. This article is about homosexuality only, not bisexuality, and should be renamed. Dream Focus 18:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont see an issue with a rename. The article is broader than Bisexuality, though does focus somewhat on that at present. Some of the remainder is confused, primarily because it is badly written. I suggest we embrace the entire gamut of LGBTQ if the outcome is to rename it, though. The world is more complex than homosexuality or bisexuality and there is a lot of anecdotal stuff about pederasty in the Arab world that could be entered into the article after refining and referencing, if it is retained. Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arabic issues are not necessarily the same as Islamic issues, as not all Arabs are Muslims (and vice versa). Timtrent's arguments toward keeping the article are also persuasive. I would prefer the article be renamed to cover all LGBTQ topics, but that's another discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially agree with NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an academic paper from 1996 with the exact title of this article, which is in turn widely discussed, indicating notability of this exact topic. Agree that expansion of scope to include LGBT topics in general/merge could be discussed, but AfD is not the place to do so. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia: Please would you consider adding the second link, the discussion one, as a reference to the article? I'm trying to work out its title and author and failing miserably to work out how to cite it. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fiddle and cyclopia. See also
well covered in many secondary sources, which is quite distinct from Islamic attitudes to LGBTQ issues. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 22 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. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Coppock

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

Contested PROD, removed without comment by IP editor. Reason was " I'm having trouble seeing this lady as more than just a jobbing actress who is below the

WP:GNG threshold for inclusion here. The lead shows no reason for inclusion, nor does the main body of text. Without any extra information I cannot see the value to WIkipedia of this article remaining." Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

To call this person "a jobbing actress" is short-sighted. Some of the most notable actresses started out with the kinds of roles Laurel Coppel has had. I strongly urge this article be kept. If we delete this one, there are hundreds of others with less-clear notability that would deserve the same fate. Truthanado (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - This article clearly satisfies
WP:GNG
, specifically:

"Significant coverage" - Laurel Coppel's career as an actress involves at least 19 listed appearances on television and movies, each with proper citation. In addition, Laurel Coppel is listed in at least seven non-user-page Wikipedia articles, all of which pre-dated the creation of this article; that's the main reason this article was created.
"Reliable" - Two of the six cited references are newspapers, including one (The New York Times) that is generally regarded as an excellent independent and verifiable source.
"Sources" - There are six sources cited in the article, including two newspapers. A Google search reports several hundred other "hits" that could lead to many other sources.
"Independent of the subject" - At least four of the six cited references are independent of the actress and groups to which she belongs, including one (The New York Times) that is generally regarded as an excellent independent and verifiable source.
"Presumed" - As a new article only a few days old, having six references is pretty good, compared to other similar new articles. As time goes on, and more research is done, additional information about Laurel Coppel will undoubtedly be added by Wikipedia editors, and the number of references will increase.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The New York Times link is just licensed content that states that she appeared in a film. It's not an actual article about her. I removed two of the other sources, as they were not reliable: the IMDb and an promotional website. The Patch article looks like a local newspaper, and the Groundlings website is a primary source. She fails the criteria of
WP:TOOSOON. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. She does not satisfy
WP:NACTOR as none of her roles appear to be very significant. Also, what the heck is this supposed to mean?: Rotten Tomatoes gives her a 78% rating for her role in Crazy, Stupid, Love with a total box office of $84.3M. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Commentary - I'm all in favor of following Wikipedia guidelines. That's how/why I created the article and why I defended it with specific reasons for each of the items in
WP:NACTOR"? I'll abide by whatever the Wikipedia community decides ... let's all remember that Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus and discussion, not majority voting. Truthanado (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no significant coverage. Only the Weston Patch source really devotes any info to her. The others are generic credit listings, which are not coverage at all. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [2] is just an advert, and not
RS, [3] is not RS and has impossibly small information anyway, [4] actually shows she is not notable and is a similar advert to the first two, [5] may be RS, but is a passing mention and thus does not count, which leaves [6] with a more substantial piece. But local press is not generally viewed on its own a sufficient, and the article simply tells us that she is a run of the mill jobbing actress. When she becomes notable she may have an article here. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Coppock is not a notable actress. She has had minor roles, many of them so insignificant they are not even given names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 21 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.

NOT NOTABLE? SHE'S THE FRIGGIN' FACE OF TOYOTA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.108.54 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing

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

It was asserted at

WP:GNG and is fundamentally unencyclopedic in that it's not a subject discussed by reliable sources. The citation scheme here is rather hodgepodge, but it seems to all be primary sources explaining individual publications' practices. The article would need references beyond journalistic how-tos and style guides, and I just don't see that ever being the case. I couldn't find any such sources, though it's not a particularly easy search. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Essentially a research essay comparing the house style of this paper to that to the other. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would take issue with "not an encyclopedic topic". This is the kind of topic that traditional print encyclopedias thrive on. I think you mean "not a Wikipedic topic", which is a very different thing that depends on the blinkered vision of an encyclopedia that has taken hold here.
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Phil, if you can prove that, the article might be worth keeping. I'm skeptical though. Does Britannica, for example, really have an entry that essentially just samples style guides to discuss the use of such titles in professional writing? If they're referring to good reliable sources, maybe the article can be saved. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the event that this mess is kept, there are greenlinks aplenty in the body which need to go away or be moved to External Links. This thing is virtually unsourced as it sits... Carrite (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOWTO, unless you can give me good reasons otherwise. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 22 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raficq Abdulla

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

Looks like an autobiographical piece, content looks copied and pasted from a variety of primary sources, no 3rd party sources to be found. Not notable. Loomspicker (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent a lot of time researching this article since it seems like it should be notable. Unfortunately, the sources are not there. There is one solid book review, a few quotes in newspapers, lots of speaking engagements. The two 1980s films had some minor award nominations but nothing written about Abdulla. None of it passes
talk) 05:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- His day job is clearly as a health administrator. The article is therefore about his extra-curricular activities. The trusteeships no doubt consist of sitting on committees. Even if a society is notable, its board members may not be. I see nothing that stands out as making him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify if your Delete vote is based on the sources, or the topic? Because he is an activist and many activists are notable and also have day jobs, there is nothing inherently non-notable about the topic. The problem is the sources, but you didn't mention the sources. --

talk) 16:10, 24 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) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aliso Village

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

Not a neighborhood, but simply a defunct housing project that is mentioned in only one reference. Not Notable.

talk) 20:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Redirect to
talk) 20:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This AfD is flawed on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. Fist of all, "not a neighborhood" and "defunct" are not reasons for deletion. The nom contends that this topic is "mentioned in only one reference." If by "mentioned" they mean very in-depth coverage demonstrating passing
WP:BEFORE not being followed. --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Notable housing project in Boyle Heights, passes GNG. There is one source counting to GNG in the footnotes. I'm also seeing 25 uses of "Aliso" in THIS JSTOR journal article, Sophie Spalding, "The Myth of the Classic Slum: Contradictory Perceptions of Boyle Heights Flats, 1900-1991," Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 45, no. 2 (Feb. 1992), pp. 107-119. No, it doesn't pass a special guideline as an inhabited town or discrete population center, but it does pass GNG as a notable housing project. The article is decent as well, not that that matters, although maybe it should... Carrite (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -
WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:55, 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 speedy delete. G3:

WP:HOAX. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Retighter

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

WP is not a dictionary, bullet point definitions may work on Wiktionary, but not on Wikipedia. Mat ty.007 18:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find no sources for the definition of this term on Google or GScholar. The most common occurrence seems to be as a misspelling of retighten. --Mark viking (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition and failing
verification. Peter James (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete. Almost certainly qualifies for A1 (no context). There's no prose here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 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 redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katsumi Kabuto

)

(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) 17:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Shelby Hotel

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

Article is about a former hotel, now operated as a bar and grill. Citations in article are a dead link to a genealogy page, a Facebook page, and the hotel's own website. Google search for ("shelby hotel" nebraska) turns up nothing indicative of notability. The article states that the hotel is in the process of nomination to the National Register of Historic Places; an NRHP listing would confer notability. The statement was inserted in December 2011, so an NRHP nomination should've had time to progress. However, Google searches for ("shelby hotel" nebraska historic) and for ("shelby hotel" nebraska "national register") turn up nothing; searching the Nebraska State Historical Society website for ("shelby hotel") also yields nothing. Absent evidence of notability, this article should be deleted or, if an NRHP nomination is still in the works, userfied until an NRHP nominating form or other source attesting notability becomes available. Ammodramus (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the co-ordinates are correct, then Google streetview suggests a fairly undistinguished building with a newly built ground floor entrance. It may be significant that the article actually has almost nothing to say about the building as such, and the claim to notability is an association with a notable individual, and a weak one at that since it is not asserted that there is any connection with the reasons for his notability. Notability is not inherited in that way. --AJHingston (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources discussing the hotel, and the article doesn't say much to convey notability. The nomination forms for recent (mid-September) Nebraska NRHP listings were all written earlier this year, so if a nomination for this property was in the works in December 2011 it was probably either rejected or never got submitted. (No prejudice to recreation if we're missing something and the hotel actually does end up on the NRHP.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:34, 21 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) 21:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Nullifier

(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) 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be nothing but fancruft, and not a feasible search term for any other particular article. By the way, TTN, do you use a template for all of these deletion requests? I tend to agree with most of them, but they all seem to be worded exactly the same. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy and paste it while occasionally making minor variations depending on the article. I pretty much nominate articles that all have the same issues, so taking the time to type out what would be essentially the same rational each time seems pointless. TTN (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, but that's why I was also wondering if you had a template for that; one where you just have to put up the template and fill in one field with the universe of the fictional item. I suppose copy and paste does about the same job, though. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Features of the Marvel Universe. Worth a paragraph or so there, and redirects are cheaper than deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm usually a pretty reliable "merge" vote in these discussions, but the Ultimate Nullifier is actually pretty notable. Someone built a replica here, it's discussed at length in this excerpt and (to a lesser extent) in this column, and it made "top ten" lists at IGN and Geeks of Doom. I feel fairly confident that I could dig up further references on its use as a deus ex machina, element of Silver Age storytelling, and more "top ten" lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources evidencing sufficent notability foound by NinjaRobotPirate. (Do you get to add "Zombie" to your name as a reward?)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources out there including:

Geektionary: From Anime to Zettabyte
Marvel Comics: The Untold Story
Marvelous Myths: Marvel Superheroes and Everyday Faith
Marvel Universe
Researching Beneath the Surface: Psycho-Social Research
Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way
The Encyclopedia of Super Villains
The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Pop Culture
The Science of Supervillains
The Supervillain Book: the evil side of comics and Hollywood

Warden (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. This is an important item in the Marvel Comics and it had various appearances throughout it's history. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:38, October 24 2013 (UTC)

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.

Sourabh Sharma

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

Non-notable. No third-party sources, the party he founded was just created as well and is likely also non-notable. Wizardman 16:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No
evidence found to indicate that this particular Sourabh Sharma meets the biographical notability guidelines. I have also placed a PROD on his party, finding nothing on it either. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, and VIAF link at the bottom of article is misleading.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point - I've now removed the VIAF that had presumably been copied from the Brinda Karat page. AllyD (talk)

Comment Subject is too young to have voting rights in India and far too young to contest even the panchayat election. Can't possibly be a president of recognized Indian political party. I request a speedy close.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 14:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Date of birth has now changed by a SPA (possibly a sock). --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The changed date of birth is indeed an own goal and speaks volumes about everything to do with this AfD.-Zananiri (talk) 19:08, 23 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) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cole White

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

Former minor league baseball player. His baseball career is unremarkable and while his military career is interesting it is also not especially notable. Spanneraol (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page was not made solely on his baseball career. White is a key figure in the debate of when/if athletes that attended military colleges and institutions could forgo their military obligation and play professional sports.Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 20:39, 12 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Borderline case. Surely he doesn't make it based on the baseball career alone, but he seems to have been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. That's
WP:GNG right there. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - I'm inclined to agree with BDD. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 26 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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yamila Abraham

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

There is two aspects to this

WP:BLP1E suggests not having an article for her for this aspect. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:32, 16 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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hona Costello

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

No sign of notability: unsigned artist, who only self-released 1 EP via the internet. No songs ever charted. Majority of references are from blogs, forums, YouTube, and sites with self-published content. A Google search didn't bring any notable publications about him either. 2Flows (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:32, 16 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edition Silvertrust

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

Search for notable media coverage came up empty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 06:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion. I also searched and found nothing online that could be used as a ref. Hcobb (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally figured out how to get this below. I originally put it in the talk page. I am a music teacher, performer and specialize as a chamber music coach. I come to this page often as a resource to get me to other pages on Wikipedia and the net. I also send my students here. I was shocked to learn you are going to delete it. I agree with what Peter Klossbruhe has written. You will make a mistake by deleting this page. I am sure that there are lots of chamber music players that come to and use this page as a resource. There must be some other criteria besides notoriety in deterining the usefulness of a page entry. I encourage you to keep this page. Signed Lawrence Block, Violinist, Clarinetist, college orchestra director and member or the Cantabile String Quartet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Larry Block (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.140.21 (talk)

These are some of the online references to Edition Silvertrust I found: classical-composers.org, classiccat.net, earsense.org/chamberbase/works/detail/?pkey=15213, scmp.net, http://books.google.com/books/about/Trio_no_1_in_F_major_for_pianforte_violi.html?id=Jtk2AQAAMAAJ, radioswissclassic.ch/cgi-bin/pip/html.cgi?lang=en&m=entity&sid=5575200abc60265320ff594ca71995d3a8af5, worldcat.org/title/piano-trio-no-1-in-d-minor-op-47/oclc/457850396, last.fm/music, forgottenstringquartets.com, .websters-online-dictionary.org, pytheasmusic.org/webern.htm, romanianculturalcentre.org.uk/cultural-diary/2013/10/george-enescus-string-octet-performed-by-chilingirian-quartet/, answers.com/topic/piano-quintet, http://books.google.com/books/about/String_quartet_in_D_minor_for_two_violin.html?id=CSY3AQAAIAAJ, classical.net/music/links, /publisher.php, http://books.google.com/books/about/Armenian_sketches.html?id=Vi03AQAAIAAJ, http://forgottenstringquartets.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/A-Guide-to-Forgotten-String-Quartets-1st-Edition.pdf, http://article.wn.com/view/2013/08/29/Stenhammar_String_Quartets_Volume_1_review/#/related_links, nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Friedrich-Kuhlau, sbworldoffice.com/assets/2011/2011-ISB-Bassists-Guide-Chamber-Music-Ensembles.pdf, bookfinder4u.com/detail/1155713532.html,earsense.org/chamberbase/works/detail/?pkey=8324, earsense.org/chamberbase/works/detail/?pkey=28642, worldcat.org/title/langsamer-satz-for-string-quartet/oclc/150875894/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true, henseltsociety.org/links.htm, http://books.google.co.uz/books/about/Music_Publishing_Companies_of_the_United.html?id=00CcSQAACAAJ, http://www.worldcat.org/title/piano-trio-in-c-major-lovissa-trio-1888/oclc/811248216?ht=edition&referer=di

Signed Lawrence Larry BlockLawrence Larry Block (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of which is an article by a human being about the company. Hcobb (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources and none of the sources mentioned here are about this publisher. I had no better luck when I did my own search. There simply doesn't appear to be any significant independent coverage of this company. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 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 snow keep because there is no delete opinions. Withdraw, basically.

Talk 18:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

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

This was AfDed but was kept because I think it was too early to tell if it was going to have a lasting effect. Now two months later it is clear this went totally nowhere so it was a generic case of Not News.

Talk 15:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

News stories covering it in detail is not the only reason to keep. You also need to prove the event had long-standing notability.

Keep With several dozen references, it is, in my opinion, clear that this article meets
talk to me 15:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The previous AFD ended on 19 August 2013 as KEEP, because it meets all notability requirements, as the overwhelming majority of people participating did say. 26 people said it should be kept, and yet two months later, we have the same AFD over again. Dream Focus 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Voting keep because it was kept before is not a good idea. My evidence is that this case has no long standing notability. Lots of the arguments in the first one for keeping were

Talk 00:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

To clarify: I think that the original nomination, by

Talk 00:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Keep The story was and is notable per
talk) 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - deemed notable once and not long ago. In-depth coverage which was persistent.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I voted Delete in the first one, but that was premature. It persisted for a good while and got fairly deep. No rule saying an event must be perpetually covered to retain notability. The vast majority of historical events are no longer in the news, simply because they're not new. It would be hard to argue the
United States presidential election, 1904 or the Siege of Tsingtao still have a lasting effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep basically per InedibleHulk vertabrim. I nominated this article originally but it's pretty clear it passes
WP:EVENT as there is persistent coverage. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:13, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CipherCloud

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

Finishing one of many incomplete nominations by

WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 07:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify. The page is indeed very marketing in tone, with mostly direct quotes of the founder and some discussion that is not really on the company itself but the general idea of network encryption. Many stylistic errors as well, such as a misleading wikilink to ArcSight making it see like the founder is notable. That would not disqualify it per se, but generally private company should have a fairly high bar of providing reliable independent sources. Maybe if the company survives long enough to go public or appear in more in-depth publications, it could be covered. But probably best to start over at that point with something less promotional. W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any "misleading wikilink to ArcSight." None are listed here. Yours,

talk) 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

The link to the founder (Pravin Kothari) is a piped (easter-egg) link to ArcSight#History. Ansh6 6 6 23:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Marketing tone is not a valid reason for deletion. Notability abundantly established by references included in article. ~KvnG 18:16, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Per KvnG's rationale. The references used are reliable and should establish the article's notability. The article should have been tagged first for promotional tone/advertising and not for an AfD. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:24, 24 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) 01:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Shoshanna Evers

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

Fails

talk) 05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: This page meets
  WP:AUTHOR requirements. Over 40,400 hits on Google for "Shoshanna Evers" [15]. Recent articles and reviews featuring Shoshanna Evers and her books found at NY Magazine [16][17], The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio newspaper) [18], another Publisher's Weekly article [19], Pop Sugar [20], Writer's Digest[21], Lady Smut [22], Simon & Schuster [23], Dear Author [24], Romantic Times[25], Publishers Weekly[26], USA Today [27], Night Owl Reviews [28], The Book Cellar [29], Romancing the Book [30], Book Lovers Inc [31], The Pen Muse [32], Fresh Fiction [33], Guilty Pleasures Book Reviews [34], XOXO After Dark [35], The Weeklings [36] and in an article in Salon [37]
  which states "If you didn’t know you were reading Fitzgerald, you might think that this decidedly erotic description was lifted from Shoshanna Evers’ Enslaved trilogy. I mean, this passage is racy."

- - Able to find multiple reviews in reliable sources which is the usual standard of notability for authors, author is widely cited by peers and reviewers. Note: I am a minor contributor to the article in question. Thanks, ShanaEB(talk) 11:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)ShanaEB (talk) 07:32, 13 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:05, 16 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. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omorfoula

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

Needs some indication of notability. Two videos of possible traditional dancers are linked, but no other sources or indication of cultural context. Is it a popular or widely-upheld cultural tradition? Or is it just something that is put on for tourists? Eggishorn (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also tried to find sources using the Greek Wikipedia, plus Google translate. I searched on 'Omorfoula' and on the Greek word provided in the article (Ομορφούλα). If I interpreted things correctly, there was no listing there.--Larry (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:54, 16 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 Deception series. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deception IV: Blood Ties

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies, specifically the section concerning upcoming product announcements. Eggishorn (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Reply to issues raised. In the same way that

Keep: Can you please explain how WP:CRYSTAL is relevant, and how it overrides
there is no deadline, and that content expansion is always possible. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

big name behind the game I don't feel helps matters much, either. The game industry in particular is prone to vaporware, especially in the import market. I would wait until at least a shipping date was announced before I created such an article, just to see if it was possible for the game to make an impact. Too many Duke Nukem 3D's have taught me that glowing coverage of future games should be treated with great skepticism. But that's why I listed this game here, so that the community could discuss the issue and other parties could weigh in. Eggishorn (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

This game is due for an early 2014 release, which isn't too far away at all. The game is well-covered in third-party sources: here is a google.co.jp search for "影牢ダークサイド・プリンセス". Notability is established via coverage by third party reliable sources, and the current problem is a lack of detailed information, and not notability. Referring to the "import market" is irrelevant, as the

United States is not the centre of the world, and the nation of Japan has human inhabitants as well. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge + Redirect to the series article. To benlisquare - generally we don't create articles simply on the product announcement (though creating a redirect is fine). We need a bit more "meatier" coverage of the game, such as concern gameplay and story details, or aspects of its development, so that we have third party, secondary sources that go into why the title is important. The game doesn't have to be released for that to happen, but that does show there's interest in it. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If worst comes to worst, then a merge and redirect is fine as well. Once more information becomes available (in the form of third-party reliable sources), information can be gradually accumulated for an article to be split off again. (This is by no means a request for early closure though; let the AfD go through the full process.) --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:34, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deception series until there are reviews about the game. Preserve the article's history please, since it'll be recreated as soon as this game is released, there sure to be coverage. All the results I find for this game in my searches show product announcements, and nothing else. Since they didn't interview anyone, or talk about the game at all, just announced it was going to come out, there is no significant coverage as of yet. Dream Focus 19:30, 16 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) 21:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kirby

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

Was PRODed in the past. Fails

WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply