Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 September	16 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Jerry

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

Transparently self-promotional Roland Crosby (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a general cleanup of the article and some Wikifying and added citations. Article needs more work but the subject appears notable. A Google search turned up national (US and Canada) and regional news articles for both the 2008 and 2010 attempts at beating the Guinness World Record. Passes
WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per AuthorAuthor and the references listed in the article. You could almost make an argument that this article fails
WP:ONEEVENT, but since there are sources covering both the 2008 and 2010 attempts, I don't think that argument succeeds. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:15, 20 September 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. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Zona

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

No sources aside from the two local ones already used in the article (both from the same week). Unable to find anything in Google either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, article must meet specific guideline criterion and also must meet general notability criteria, article is perhaps a HOAX has no coverage can be established. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not saying its a hoax (there are two sources in the article already, just nothing else on Google) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Coverage in a local newspaper does not establish notability. According to Google News, he got a trivial mention in an NPR piece, too, but I don't see much national attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, he made the NPR piece and also is on a few scattered websites, but that does not mean that is is not notable. I guess I'm basing my argument on the fact that time and again, other news sites mentioned him when talking about the base, such as the Boston Globe did here. If anyone has access to that article, I would love to know if there is anything beyond the first paragraph. He has also made this article (image donation) and was briefly mentioned in this one (car accident, wasn't hurt), so there are more than three stories out there with him, and there are more than two news organizations covering him.
talk) 02:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Sounds a bit like normal coverage of (somewhat) everyday events. A car accident, at least, would be certain to hit newspapers in a smaller town or closed community. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, but I was putting them out there as stuff that I found. Of course a car accident will be reported, but it also came up in the internet search, so was worth placing. The point I am trying to make is that he is being covered. It's up to the community to decide whether he is notable, but I am presenting my side of the argument.
    talk) 02:32, 17 September 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 American Legion Field (Florence). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wolfe Stadium

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Ultraviolet (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

)

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

The stadium this article apparently intended to mean is American Legion Field (Florence) - it has never been named Red Wolfe Stadium and while I think if the page had been named Red Wolves Stadium, which would be a valid nickname, a redirect could be acceptable, I don't see a point to have this article remaining. Ultraviolet (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete, article is somewhat a duplicated content of an existent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as article is exact same topic as target article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reliable source that "Red Wolfe Stadium" is used as a nickname for American Legion Field (Florence), then redirect. Otherwise, delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:42, 16 September 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. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry McDonagh

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

WP:RS (The AnxietyAttack site tells readers "If a link or recommendation is provided to a product, service, subscription, or other item, please assume that the authors, publishers, and owners of AnxietyAntidotes.com are affiliated with this company and are earning revenue for promoting such products.") Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Joe McDonagh. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article seems to be promotional material about a non-notable author and his non-notable book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 16 September 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.

VAR Magazine

The result of this discussion was 'Delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity and survival

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

Article prodded but PROD taken down by editor who created this.

WP:OR are two valid reasons for this to be deleted. ...William 21:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Original research. Should be CSD'd as a non-encyclopedic article. reddogsix (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish we could CSD stuff like this. There should be a new criterion. I was the one who initially PRODded this, my rationale is on the PROD (see the article's page history). --
Scream about the things I've broken) 22:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete - Pure OR. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, as per all the above. Essay, original research, simply not an encyclopedia article. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:03, 17 September 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. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Folan

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

It's been three years since the last afd, but he still has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails

WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per GS. Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 16:04, 18 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marius (singer)

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

Not relevant. I'm Chilean, and I was born in Rancagua, and I know that this "artist" doesn't have the encyclopedic relevance that Wikipedia requires. As a matter of facts, the same article was deleted several times in the Spanish Wikipedia. Warko holic ^talk 20:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Like the nom says, I can't locate any reliable sources on this musician. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing coverage to suggest this person
WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 19:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this artist meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at
WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:19, 17 September 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. Coverage exists. List should perhaps be pruned, and one could argue for "no consensus", but I'm closing as "keep" because of the flawed nature of the nomination. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Muslim Awards

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

Non-notable award. This is the first year of award. All articles are of the nature X wins award or The first ever British Muslim Awards go to. Nothing to show the award itself is notable, and being less then a year old hard to show if the awards will last or fade away. Caffeyw (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If kept at all, it should be pruned down to a list of winners. We do not allow awards categories, but award lists are allowed. However this list to being too expansive in its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 31 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 7 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, KTC (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Event is not notable right now, it is purportedly supported by non major outlets. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure I follow the nominator's rationale; it seems that the article satisfies the
WP:GNG per the sources referenced in the article (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), so why exactly should it be deleted? Does it fall under some subject-specific notability guideline I'm unaware of? (User:Eduemoni - Do you consider the BBC a non-major news outlet?) --Cerebellum (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Eduemoni, all sources are small local papers or not third-party. None of the people who attended the ceremony have WP article, and only about 600 people attended it. Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWS or a promotional platform.--Loomspicker (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep - There's no Wikipedia guideline stating that something has to be recurring in order to have an article. The article passes GNG as it is supported by
reliable sources all of which do in actual fact significantly cover the award. YousufMiah (talk) 21:20, 21 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Soifer

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

Person not notable. Deletion also considered in Portuguese Wiki. Tobias1984 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Deleted on Portuguese Wiki. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:34, 5 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know Mr. Soifer's recent work and some of his articles and books. I think he deserves this page in Wikipedia as a very educated person and with a brilliant career that should be shared with the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by fumiguinha— Fumiguinha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The contributing editor account name combines the subject's forename with the name of his organisation, indicating likely
reliable 3rd party evidence of biographical notability, nor am I finding anything better. AllyD (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Jack Soifer is one of the very few authorities on sustainable development and micro-business, a publiched author he moves in very high government circles and is an acknowledged expert. His page should remain and be added to! Paul Rees www.algarvedailynews.cop

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VIA Technologies shareholders and subsidiaries

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

Useless article with inaccurate information (HTC is owned by VIA? Citation needed.), redlink farm. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might have been relevant ten years ago. VIA Technologies is not particularly notable any more, as evidenced by all those redlinks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article on the firm. That they are no longer an important firm is irrelevant; they once were. WP in an encyclopedia , a permanent record of the present and the past, not a current business directory. But this never would have been a valid separate article. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:53, 29 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 7 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, KTC (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say merge to VIA Technologies but I see no content here that is reliably-sourced and would add to the parent article. AllyD (talk) 06:10, 16 September 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 Gendai budō. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shinbudo

)

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

The term is at best a minority version of the more common term

Gendai budo which predates this article by a long time. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. - Kontoreg (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combine with
Gendai budo. I don't care which is merged into which, but it seems like these terms refer to the same thing, so one article should suffice. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Transclude anything useful into
ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:45, 16 September 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. G11, entirely promotional with no likelihood of improvement. The limit for what counts as promotional in pop music is a little more relaxed than in some fields, but this is beyond the limit. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sylfronia King

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

Unconvinced that this person passes

WP:MUSIC. Lots of hits, but almost all to self-published or primary sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - A major reference for this article is footnoted as " young, robert (1 june 2012). "career success". Retrieved 1 june 2012." It links to Reug Vision, a company affiliated with the subject of the article. The remaining references establish only that the singles exist, that King appeared at an event, and that she has a film credit. (One is a dead link.) Non-notable.JSFarman (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article about a non-notable singer. Speaking of promotion, the article's creator has been indefinitely blocked for promotion. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
qwerty 09:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No mention of King as an individual anywhere on Google, and the links to the album that I've found cannot be used as references - definitely not notable enough for inclusion - to add insult to injury, article creator has been indeffed. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:29, 16 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleSmart

PeopleSmart (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 website. PROD declined because NYT article provides notability. The NYT is a blog article in which the website is noted as going live tomorrow. Other references provided are all the same PR announcement as the NYT blog piece with minor changes. Caffeyw (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This AfD is fundamentally flawed on so many levels I don't know where to begin. First of all this easily passes
original research slander? By extension the nom claims reporters Leena Rao of TechCrunch and Tomio Geron of the Wall Street Journal of participating in the "PR". Again, the nom provides zero evidence of this slander on those reporters. The admin was correct to decline the nom's PROD. This is part of a recent spate of inherently flawed AfDs by this nom. Maybe a RfC might be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm skeptical that this article can grow beyond stub-class, but it seems to satisfy the bare minimums for
newsblogs for notability, they are a legitimate source and don't seem to be opinion pieces or overly promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:WIP before nominating new articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The NYT plus the WSJ are sufficient sources to keep any article. The NYT blogs of this sort are what would in the print days have been called "columns," sections written regularly by a particular journalist. They are to some extent expected to be a expression of that journalist's opinion, but they're under editorial control. The reliability depends on the extent of this control & the reputation of the columnist.-- the NYT columns have always been noted for reliability and competence; the WSJ similarly, at least for matters within their basic scope rather than on politics. The best known example of a paper where the columnists/bloggers are not necessarily reliable is The Huffington Post, which we use much more carefully on controversial subjects, especially BLP. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 18 September 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.

QkR

The result was
talk) 15:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

QkR (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)

Merge into Mastercard, currently WP:ATD-M ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mastercard, non notable software. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be merged, why not merge it? Speedy Keep and redirect to Mastercard- this action does not require an AfD at all. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:09, 16 September 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. This discussion hinged around referencing and the quality thereof, but there was no consensus on whether there does or does not exist sufficient source material to support this article. Significant concerns were also brought up with the quality of the article, this would be handled via the normal editorial process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)

Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (3rd nomination)

Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (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)

Accroding to
WP:MAGAZINE
, a magazine is notable for the following reasons.

have produced award winning work

have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history

are considered by
reliable sources
to be authoritative in their subject area

are frequently cited by other reliable sources

are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets

The only possible justification for this magazine being notable would be the claim that it "served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history". But this magazine did not. The claim in the previous AfD was that the magazine served a historic purpose of encouraging Carl Sagan to participate in a special session of the annual AAAS meeting devoted to debunking Immanuel Velikovsky. I'm sorry, that's not a notable historical event and the story can be easily covered at articles about
WP:FRINGE promotion as it stands. jps (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the editor Iantresman had commented here but removed his comments, as such the discussion might read a little strangely.
talk) 09:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

As far as I am aware you are under a topic ban with respect to astrophysics and plasma physics topics. Is that not so?
talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
"Immanuel Velikovsky ... to argue that Earth suffered catastrophic close contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times. ... Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics" 09:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It is not up to another editor to invite you to violate your topic ban. It is irrelevant that most people don't take his views seriously, it does concern astrophysics broadly construed,
talk) 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I think we should make this an exception for his topic ban as it is an article Mr. Tresman began.
WP:AGF and all that. That said, I don't think any of the sources Mr. Tresman provided speak to the issue of the notability of this particular magazine. We need to establish it as having a "historic purpose". None of these sources really do that. They are just sort of little cul-du-sacs in the neverending story of Velikovsky polemics and mourners. jps (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It certainly is mentioned off-handedly in a few books which makes it somewhat different than other short-lived student newspapers from the 1970s which would probably be speedily deleted on the basis of zero coverage, but to justify an entire article on the periodical you need to have sources written about the magazine itself, not just in reference to other things. What we have instead are sources that mention the magazine as part of a larger story. Not everthing that is merely mentioned is article-worthy, and what we have here is an article that has to be written based on primary sources because there are no independent critical reviews in reliable sources. This is a problem. It's just not possible to write an article on this magazine because no one has noticed it outside of the
WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Mentioning a magazine as part of coverage of crackpots and crackpottery does not make the magazine itself notable enough for an article. That's covered in
WP:FRINGE claims because they tend to be over-promoted with unreliable sources. Indeed, that's much of the way this article is written. jps (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. For a journal of this type it had a large circulation and therefore has a significant part in the controversy over Velikovsky in the early 1970s. asnac (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about a journal, we are talking about a series of ten magazines. I don't think it follows that a series being viewed by 10,000 - 20,000 automatically means something is historically important, and the ten issue series already get some coverage here:
talk) 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
When I said ten articles I meant ten magazines. I've corrected it as such,
talk) 12:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I said journal because it had a lot of academics contributing to it. For me, this is a key aspect of why it should be kept. If it was college ephemera written by students for students then it would be a different matter. I understand your concern about the lack of secondary sources. However, we're accustomed to using journals to establish notability, but it's a harder matter to find third-party sources that confirm the notability of a journal itself, as journals are only the sum of the articles they contain. What makes this one worth keeping is that the subject (Velikovsky) is notable, those writing the articles were professionals in their fields, it had a relatively large circulation, and it formed the basis of a controversial book. asnac (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What makes this one worth keeping is that the subject (Velikovsky) is notable,"
talk) 09:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, and until that is rectified, there isn't that much to say otherwise we have the current mess of an over-reliance on primary sources. What can be said about it can be said in
talk) 09:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It should be noted that User:Iantresman is a personal friend and sometime business partner of the people who founded and edited this magazine. jps (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Tresman I don't think it is outing since you have already outed yourself. Personally I think you should have disclosed any personal connection before commenting per
talk) 16:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Regardless of who created the page, it had a high circulation and the articles were partly anthologized into a book which shows a lot of hits on Google Books it has been influential or often mentioned, within the context of the Velikovsky affair. If nothing else this page helps us document an aspect of the Velikovsky affair neutrally. COI is a problem to check for neutrality of writing, not a reason to delete article. --
talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The vast majority of those
WP:GHITS you are noticing are to a walled garden of unreliable sources that are promulgated by the magazine editors and founders themselves and their associates. jps (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Gosh I dunno there's so much outside a walled garden that references Velikovsky Reconsidered. Here's just a start

Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, University if Illinois Press

Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science, University of Chicago Press

The Autonomy of History: Truth and Method from Erasmus to Gibbon, University of Chicago Press

Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism Through the Ages, Cambridge University Press

The Skeptic, ABC-CLIO

Exploration: Themes Of Science Fiction, A Brief Guide, Trafford Publishing

Einstein and the Generations of Science, Transaction Publishers

The Primitive Church in the Modern World, University of Illinois Press

This is not a complete list, from Google Books, quite a bit more. Probably could find more looking in JSTOR, Gale, EBSCO and other commercial databases. Most of these are trivial for GNG purposes, the point being, pretty widely cited book/periodical about fringe science theories and catastrophism. --
talk) 21:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, gee, not only is it not a complete list, it's a list that is pretty poor from the standpoint of a bibliography on THIS subject. Have you read any of these books? How do you propose to use them as sources for this magazine? Additionally, on what basis did you decide that Hank Bauer's book should be considered an independent source? There is a place to write an article on Velikovsky and his ideas, but the question we're asking here is whether this particular magazine has been covered enough by outside sources to actually write a good article. You'll note that except for Bauer's credulity, none of those sources are currently used in the article. I challenge you to explain how one might do so. Seriously. I'd like to see it done if you're really so convinced this is salvageable. jps (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI explicitly states: "Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid (see criteria for deletion)." I submit that the very existence of an article on this obscure 10-issue magazine is used by those associated with the enterprise to promote their associations and beliefs, and there is evidence that this is going on in this discussion. It is only right that people be made aware that the arguments by associated individuals are occurring in such a context. jps (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not that obscure given all the RS books that footnote or mention it (in the context of fringe culture). You may be right about promotion. Who has time to do battle with full time fringe theorists easier to just delete. But this is a marginal case that looks like endless wack-a-mole. Time might be better spent with NPOV and balance issues. --
talk) 21:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

How can there be balance when there are no independent reliable sources?
talk) 09:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Topic seems notable, article is well written, NPOV and sourced. No reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which source in the article do you consider to be the most reliable? jps (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most reliable ???
WP:RS provides various tests for reliability of cources, but it does not set out a scale of comparative reliability, so your question makes no sense. Which sources do you consider to be unreliable ? As nominator, it is up to you to make your argument for deleteion. So far you haven't convinced me, and asking rhetorical questions does not help your case. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

See the way
talk) 16:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I am unimpressed by your sarcasm. I see just one place where
WP:RS does not set out a scale of comparative reliability - it simply gives tests that classify a source as reliable or unreliable. So asking a rhetorical question about the "most reliable" source makes no sense. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I submit that none of the sources the article uses are reliable enough to be good to base a neutral article upon. jps (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sarcastic and bitchy statements like "I'm sorry, ... this article, in particular, is serving as a coatrack for WP:FRINGE" just make it sound like this deletion is being proposed by a spiteful editor who is on some kind of edit-warring crusade to introduce bias. Whither neutrality?--
talk) 09:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Re-reading the previous AfD discussion (2007), I would also stand by everything I said then. I'd also not that the editor "Nondistinguished" was also later exposed as a sockpuppet of "ScienceApologist", despite trying to have me banned for suggesting he was. Pretty much everything he ever typed was in bad faith. /smh--
talk) 09:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh wait, hang on:
talk) 12:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You haven't raised a single argument for keeping the article, but rather personally attacked the nom,
talk) 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Incorrect. I have raised arguments for keeping the article (they were presented in its
talk) 11:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Notability is not temporary, but this publication appears never to have seen significant independent coverage. Relatedly, please try to stay on topic - we are here to discuss an article, not each other.
Talk Page Guidelines apply. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per IRWolfie. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to one editor, Pensée has received significant coverage in reliable sources, such as Henry Bauer's 1984 Beyond Velikovsky from Univ. Illinois Press and Michael Gordin's 2012 The Pseudoscience Wars from Univ. Chicago Press. A publication does not need to rival Time, Life, Newsweek, or Sports Illustrated to be notable. It only needs to be notable in its niche and Pensée was arguably notable enough in the early 1970s to motivate the AAAS to hold a symposium on Velikovsky's ideas in February 1974 in San Francisco where Carl Sagan famously confronted Velikovsky. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a longlasting publication and the specific issue is already covered in some detail over at Immanuel Velikovsky. II | (t - c) 01:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are some references for this article. striking several refs per Talk:Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)#References for this article and discussion here. 64.40.54.4 (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dumond, Joseph F. Remembering The Sabbatical Years of 2016. Bloomington, Indiana, USA:
ISBN 9781479770397
. Retrieved September 11, 2013.

~~Ginenthal, Charles (1995).~~ Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky (illustrated ed.). Tempe, Arizona, USA: New Falcon Publications.
OCLC 33128016
. Retrieved September 11, 2013.

~~RGA Dolby (May 1975).~~ "What Can We Usefully Learn from the Velikovsky Affair?". OCLC 2242476
. Retrieved September 11, 2013.

Gordin, Michael D. (September 26, 2012). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe (illustrated, reprint ed.). Chicago, Illinois, USA:
ISBN 9780226304427
. Retrieved September 11, 2013.

If somebody asks politely at
WP:REX they can probably get the full text of these citations emailed to them. 64.40.54.112 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — 64.40.54.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
It appears just from the titles that these sources are about the general Velikovsky affair rather than about this journal. That affair is already covered pretty well over at the bio. We need sources that specifically discuss the magazine, not sources which discuss the same issue as the magazine. II | (t - c) 01:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the sources might be more valuable if you had read them :) These are sources confirming the notability of Pensée in the events of that affair. It's notability is one of the things under question in this AfD.--
talk) 10:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
As there was a question, I just wanted to confirm that the sources I listed above do discuss the Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered issues of the magazine (i.e. they directly discuss the article of this AfD). Again, I will point people toward
WP:REX if they still have a concern (i.e. you can easily verify it for yourself). Best.. 64.40.54.174 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
So I went and checked "What Can We Usefully Learn from the Velikovsky Affair?" and it gives one line to mention Pensee. Yes this is passing coverage and not helpful for establishing notability.
talk) 09:13, 15 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) 17:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't give a shit about the ideas or ideology of either the individual or the editors and neither should you. When there is a book called this: Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999; 354 pages
ISBN 0-252-06845-9 and when there is another book resulting from this ten issue run of a journal, we've got ourselves a notable subject, worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Passes GNG. The end. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Not sure I follow; why does the name of the book matter in establishing the notability of Pensee?
talk) 23:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I really despise warning flag bombing. There are no fewer than five sitting on this piece. Trout for whomever did that. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's Science Apologist for you lmao --
talk) 08:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename and refocus article as Pensée. It seems a bit 'jumping the gun' to have an article on a "special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée", when there is yet no article on the actual magazine. This would make a lovely section. And if enough notability can be established for this subseries, then I would happily support a split. But for now, it's like having an article on History of X without an article of X.--Coin945 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst your point might seem like "common sense", in reality, Pensée appears to have been neither notable nor widely read by anyone (probably not even on its own college campus) until it was revived for its "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered" series - at which juncture, it became a focal point for Velikovskian mayhem across America and Europe. I've certainly never seen any of the pre-IVR editions.--
talk) 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to closing admin: This is a somewhat complicated issue. Clearly, there is a lot to consider. Let me explain what I think the best rationale is for keeping the article and why I reject it. These 10 issues were instrumental in encouraging certain members of the AAAS to have a special session (note, we have no article on that special session and rightly so, even though it is more notable that this magazine) to provide what essentially became a platform for Carl Sagan's most famous speech on the subject of Immanuel Velikovsky. That session basically put a book-end on the so-called "Velikovsky Affair" and ensured that the proposals related to this kind of "catastrophism" would be relegated to the fringes of the fringe from there on out. To that end, one might argue that as the impetus for the meeting the 10 issues are notable. But the question we have to consider is whether they are notable according to
WP:UNDUE. Essentially, what we'll end up with is a stub that can go no further and, more problematically, it's a stub that fundamentally violates our own notability guideline. The rest of the arguments that there are "sources" that can be had are basically spurious: the sources are corrupt. jps (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Unlike a court-room, we don't make closing arguments directed to the judge. It's bad form to lobby and appeal to the closing admin. We're supposed to work out consensus among one another and the closing admin looks for consensus achieved, or not. Suggest striking "to closing admin". --
talk) 16:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah but come on, this is Science Apologist we're dealing with here. He is not interested in seeking consensus, nor does he really give two hoots about "notability": he is just interested in eradicating all mention of pseudioscience from wikipedia, by whatever means he thinks he can get away with. This is the second time he's tried to have this article deleted, and it probably won't be the last. --
talk) 11:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This topic area is under discretionary sanctions per
talk) 18:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I wasn't aware Mr JPS had ever apologised for his personal attacks on *me*, nor disavowed the sentiments behind them. Doubtless he will soon prove this by attempting to have be sanctioned yet again. Oh wait, it's already started! :-D --
talk) 20:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't care what past grievance you have with him, if you can't stop yourself from attacking another editor don't edit,
talk) 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
that's exactly what I said to JPS one time! lmao --
talk) 21:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It is also amusing how if I put a courtesy sanctions notification on your talk page, you declare it to be "trolling", but if you put one on mine, that's apparently fine /chuckles/ --
talk) 21:40, 26 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lunaticks

Lunaticks (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
overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for fan cruft. Articles must be encyclopedic and well sourced, notability must established. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I agree with the nom and Eduemoni. These Ultra Series articles were all created by sockpuppets, by the way. You might mention that he was banned from both Japanese and English Wikipedias for his disruptive editing that included these Ultraman articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 16 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayport Police Department (Minnesota)

Bayport Police Department (Minnesota) (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)

Small town police department. Nothing notable, just another small town's police department. Caffeyw (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the few news mentions are normal for a police department so need to see something that says why this police depart is more notable than any other police dept. --
talk) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete We normally have not kept articles on departments this size unless there is something special. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 19 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seiran Kobayashi

Seiran Kobayashi (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)

Unsourced. There is one source, but it's too primary to stand in isolation on a BLP Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would remind the nominator of
WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per the above comments, the subject of this article has received enough media coverage to satisfy basic notability criteria. I have already added a few more references to the article. --DAJF (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per lack of
WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I am sorry. Seiran Kobayashi is a young actress representing Japan. In Japan, he is an idol more famous than AKB48. She is also a political movement house said to be the youngest in Japan. Can the news web site in Japan be used as sauce in wikipedia? The site is homepages of the newspaper publishing company representing Japan, such as Asahi Shimbun and Sankei Shimbun. --生活支持者 (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)([17][reply]

When referred to the "Kobayashi Seiran politician", HP of 37'000 affairs hit. Moreover, in the "Kobayashi Seiran", it was found to the extent that it was the same as "Ichiro Ozawa" and "Yoshihiko Noda." --生活支持者 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I had noticed that an earlier version of the article said that she is a politician. The only source offered for that was a blog page of a political activist which says nothing about her being a politician. Blogs in general are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia. The number of web hits with two keywords is also not evidence, since it picks up random pairings. If you can find a reliable source (see
WP:RS) that states that an 8-year-old child is a politician (and links to articles in major Japanese newspapers are acceptable), please add it, but I doubt you can do it. Perhaps you are confusing "politician" with "political activist"? I see no evidence for the latter either, but if you have RS, show them. Michitaro (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem is not whether she is "notable", but whether we can (and I agree, not that we have) prove notability to
WP:V. Are we losing vital content on an important topic? Not, I believe, on en:WP. If this actress is notable to the en readership, then that will be demonstrated by English language sources. This is after all a BLP, and we have standards. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm afraid you are misunderstanding not only the sourcing in this case, but also some of the basic principles of
WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Finally, since it is true English sources are preferable if there are some, here are a few sources, of varying degrees of depth, in English: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. Michitaro (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems that I was wrong. Seiran Kobayashi and Kanon Tani of Tomoki Hino of a "political activist" and an intimate thing are clear also from the utterance of their twitter etc.("(as opposed to cooperation by Tomoki Hino) I always appreciate! I need your help well from now on! " [24]) However, there was no sauce with high credibility that Seiran Kobayashi is a "politician." I am sorry. Seiran Kobayashi is a Japanese national idol and I think that English sauce also exists. There are a lot of reports about the Kobayashi Seiran in a Japanese newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 生活支持者 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you recognize the problem. I am afraid that one twitter asking for support--which from a geinojin is usually just a formality to fans--is not evidence of political activism. Michitaro (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We still have to meet the standards of BLP, and we have to do so on en:WP. The article, as it stood at nomination, was clearly failing to do this, even though it had some Japanese sources. If it's cut back now to, "She is an 8 year old actress, no Oscars as yet, very popular despite", then I'm happy that we can source that to
WP:V
through the Japanese sources and also through at least some English language sources (such as TokyoGraph) that do confirm the basic claims. This is a minor claim, it doesn't need a sophisticated source.

Personally I see no need for this article, in this shallow detail and this early in her career, on en:WP. Anyone interested would do better to read the ja:WP article. However if the sources you note above could please be added to this article, then I'm happy that it would at least meet our policy for retention here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG and elsewhere, and by these, she passes. Michitaro (talk) 13:27, 19 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Rudel

Dennis Rudel (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:NSPORT as a manager as well. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL; article creator has a track record of creating non-notable articles. Giant Snowman 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GS, standard non-notable footballer. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't satisfy any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 19:39, 18 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

29 Second Film Festival

29 Second Film Festival (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 film festival. Started in 2011. References include announcement of the festival, and an article about a film that earned a place, and not about the festival itself. Understand being Korean articles can be hard to find, but just not seeing it here. Caffeyw (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more articles about the festival. I'm no good at Korean so I would appreciate a Korean-proficient editor checking these out.

http://www.kubs.ac.kr/gboard/bbs/board.php?bo_table=bodo&wr_id=89

http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2012110705771

http://www.womennews.co.kr/news/52752

http://interview365.mk.co.kr/news/14161

http://www.newsjebo.com/news/view.asp?idx=173&msection=5&ssection=19

http://www.sciencetimes.co.kr/article.do?atidx=0000057769

-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell most of these are repeats of the same press release. In fact the wording for the majority of them is 100% the same. For the other one or two that aren't the exact same press release, the festival is mentioned in passing in relation to a bigger article. ie a passing mention that it's happening. There's no independent information about the festival in these. Caffeyw (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

To re-evaluate what was offered by User:Brainy J:
authored article, not a press release

authored article, not a press release

authored article, not a press release

"perhaps" a press release, but not for sure

more likely a promotional release that decribes the event and its qualifiers

authored article, not a press release

Keep. Despite the nom's telling us "from what I can tell" and claiming the sources are repetitive, from what I can tell through translation of
Korean language sources is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

And Caffeyw, before responding, please let's await input from editors better able to read, understand, and evaluate Korean sources for this Korean topic. Huh? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, and wait for further developments. By the way, we can notice that User:Caffeyw has never ever written a line, even in reply to a message in her talk page. May be this user is under the threshold of notoriety. Pldx1 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the google translation is sufficient to show notability. Another example of why we need either to require WP:BEFORE or stop this nominator from nominating articles for deletion. The first might take a long time to get consensus on, DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is written by a student in my course. I've asked him and his colleagues to provide better sources to help with notability, but any help from the community will be also appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough
talk) 15:02, 19 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing brand

Clothing brand (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 of clothing brand, nothing more. Caffeyw (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no real content and no sources. As a second choice, redirect to brand. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTDICT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Right now it is just a dictionary definition. Even if a more informative article was written it would probably be better to give the information in some other article: Clothing, Modern clothing, Clothing manufacture, or something else more general. BayShrimp (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a dictionary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to brand where the topic of product branding is discussed in greater sourced detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:03, 16 September 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 deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAYthaRipper

JAYthaRipper (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)

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

Artist without
WP:MUSICBIO. Shirt58 (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 15 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeo Tamaru

Shigeo Tamaru (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 seem to pass
WP:N for biographies. Even more problematic than recently created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikako Watanabe by the same author. Probably created by the same COI initiative (see my comment at Chikako's AfD for details on that). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Mono (Shigeo Tamaru album). buff bills 7701 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with the deleted Chikako Watanabe article, it's difficult to see how this person passes the basic notability criteria. The NaNa (band) article and associated album articles also have similar notability concerns. --DAJF (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DAJF: Wouldn't the band pass due to their NaNa_(band)#Discography? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I just checked the online Billboard via my library and did confirm that they charted in the Billboard Uncharted chart (but I could only find one charting, and not the yearly one--I even checked the last three issues of that year). But the problem is that that chart is generated from things like MySpace access figures, something which, as was seen with the access figures for Watanabe on Wikipedia, could be suspect. It seems the only thing the band has going for it is this one charting (if this chart counts) and the Warners label. The latter seems to satisfy
WP:NMUSIC, but it doesn't seem right when nothing else seems to support that notability. Michitaro (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As with the Watanabe article, I just don't find significant coverage in either English or Japanese. Michitaro (talk) 02:21, 16 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teja Jat Sikh

Teja Jat Sikh (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)

Pure essay on a clan in India. Doesn't appear anything notable about them, just one of many. However bring it here so that it can be determined if there's something missing since there may not be articles online. Article is 100% essay/OR in current form. Caffeyw (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced; not a single hit on for the term on Google Books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously needs to re-written but how? No sources available. --
talk) 02:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Jat people where the various Jatt clans can be discussed in context and detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:06, 16 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher Gym

Kosher Gym (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 gym. Members got unhappy when forced to pay for extras, and when gym was sold to a corporate gym company. One of many niche gyms that ended up not making money and having to close/sell to new owners. Caffeyw (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the (poorly organized) sources, the issues was covered in
ISBN 978-0-7391-6671-0. Retrieved 15 September 2013., through it appears to be the only one. It may lead to a better source, though. This may bear further investigation; perhaps ping Wikipedia:WikiProject New York?.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wasn't able to see the source used for the kerfuffle over class fees, but checked the rest and added the general notability, and I've rewritten it to be tighter while adding details from the sources. However, Google news also has numerous hits for a Kosher Gym in Jerusalem, which now uses the former web address of this club, so at some point disambiguation may be necessary.Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep.
WP:BEFORE prior to nominating new articles for deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article did not have adequate evidence of notability when submitted, bt the added references here are sufficient to do so. I strongly advise the nom to follow WP:Deletion Policy, that deletion is the last alternative, and it is preferable to search for references before requested deletion . The criterion for deletion is unreferenceable, not unreferenced. This sort of nomination is unconstructive, and we've been seeing too many of them. Perhaps we should try again to make WP:BEFORE required, not merely good practice. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 18 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Wiethoff

Rob Wiethoff (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 actor. Known for being the voice of a computer game character. Also voiced the character in a short 30 min film. Nothing other then that. Created it seems as part of a series of articles based around the game. Caffeyw (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Actor received coverage from several large video game media outlets, such as this article at Kotaku, [25]. Was also nominated as best voice actor in (at least) one major video game awards show, the Spike VGAs. Won a DICE award [26]. #4 in top 10 best video game actors at Game Informer.
WP:BEFORE applies here. --Teancum (talk
)

As an aside, I find it slightly concerning the vast majority of this user's edits are AfD-related, and there have been only ~630 edits in a month. --Teancum (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep (per above), but as the creator of the article I don't really have much of an input. I will try and improve the article as much as I can today. Thanks, Teancum, for giving me a bit of a headstart (yet again!), and I hope the consensus will be keep, as I really think Wiethoff deserves an article. --
talk) 01:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and allow continued improvements by those willing to build content. I am becoming concerned at the nominator's concentration on new articles, and encourage him to read and show understanding
WP:PERFECT before nominating brand news article for deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above. The nominator should also have a look at
WP:NAFD. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

SNOW Keep I do;t want to do it myself, but I would urge a snow keep on this and similar nominations--trying to delete hopeless articles is an excellent way to improve WP, but trying to delete new promising ones instead of trying to reference them is an excellent way to discourage newcomers and harm the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 18 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Iron Bubble Syndrome

The Iron Bubble Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources identified for the subject. Not mentioned in articles of the two psychiatrists mentioned as proponents of the syndrome. Fails
WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:49, 20 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.A.M.A.

P.A.M.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability can not be ascertained. Much of the claims in the article appear to be refer to W.A.K.O. which this organization claims to be part of. The organization is not the international organization it claims Peter Rehse (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason. Both entries were made by the same author on the same day and appear primarily designed to bolster his self authored page Both pages are full of unsubstantiated hyperbole.

World Mixed Martial Arts Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also, after a superficial research of the organization's web page I suspect it to be a
semi-criminal group, undoubtfully present in the MMA scene, but untouchable enough to be excluded from any serious media- and professional sports recognition. Let's give the fellas time to legalize and bleach before they recreate the page) Ukrained2012 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both Unsourced articles about two Ukraine based organizations with no indication of notability. According to the WAKO website, they did not hold world championship events in Yalta so the claims and numbers are not supported. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Ukraine based" part was totally irrelevant as we got more than a lot of notable organizations based overhere) Nevertheless, I still support both the deletion and the Papaursa's general view. Ukrained2012 (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because they claim to be worldwide organizations, yet all their championships seem to occur in Yalta (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.A.K.O.-W.K.J.F. World Championships 2004 (Ylta)). Otherwise, you're right--location usually has no bearing on notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither article has anything under references and both have just one external link--to their home page. Nothing shows notability or reliable sourcing.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 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) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Symkaria

Symkaria (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. Non-notable fictional country. No substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. There is no way to flesh the article out further then an in universe stub because there is no information to give it real world context or cover it's development and creation history. Ridernyc (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say this article is obscure, but notable. See Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. When I reviewed the sources, it appears some sources are from the intellectual property owner, but some are from third-parties. This is subject that is probably only of interest to a small group, but still of encyclopedic interest. I didn't create the article, but found it useful and have tried to add to it. 42of8 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us the link to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A significant coverage in an independent reliable source that I've found is in Peter Sanderson's The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City, published by Simon & Schuster (not Marvel), which has an article on the subject. It's a book, so you'll have to check it out from a library. I haven't found a lot on the internet but I'm having more success in looking at books. Some of the books are debatable if they count as primary or secondary sources, such as the Marvel Atlas which isn't written by the creators or any story writers but is published by Marvel. Also, it looks as though Symkaria might appear in other media besides the comics. Looking for sources related to that. I'm not arguing that the article needs a lot of work, but it seems to me that there is more that can be added on the subject. Of interest to me is the different Easter European stereotypes that the writers use in depicting different versions of Symkaria. I feel a discussion on the articles talk page about specific needs of the article would be more helpful than simply nominating it for deletion. 42of8 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear you found one source that no one can see. So really even if we take your word that this source has signifigant coverage of the development and other real world context we still have a total of one source. all the rest is just your own assertion that if we talked we could maybe make up some original research to inject into this article about a non-notable fictional location that has no sources to back up anything we might be able to add. Really you are just saying
WP:ITSUSEFUL and trying to find any shred of anything that might make it look like it is notable and not trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Per Wikipedia policy, offline sources must be considered and must be taken on good faith
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. And compiling what other researchers have already said or posting summaries from primary sources is not original research. There are plenty of things I could say about this topic that I've learned from my research that would not be appropriate; like how Symkaria seems to be reflective of a pre-communist Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42of8 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes and none of that changes the fact that you have found ONE source. Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you have a problem with the sources in the article. If there is one source, it is logical to assume there are others. It is not logical to assume there are no other sources because you did a google search and didn't like what you found. 42of8 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as
in-universe trivia. It has a page on the Marvel Comics wikia, and that's sufficient. bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per Bobrayner's rationale.
talk) 21:05, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the primary source provided by the author, the article itself provides many Marvel books where Symkaria is mentioned and mostly elaborated, starting in 1985 and continuing until today. These books provide many details about the country: a map, locations within it, a portray of its people, foreign relations and more. It's much more than a footnote, and thus notable. -- Gabi S. (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry looking over the list of sources I fail to see the sources you are referring to. I see a ton of wikis, a blog post, the comics themselves, one or two books published by Marvel and a total one book published by an independent source. Can you be more clear on exactly where you are seeing these sources that have in depth coverage that would add real world context to this article? Ridernyc (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the comics themselves. Many of them, describing detail upon detail of this fictional country. What do you mean "real world context"? It's as fictional as Superman, and as notable as Krypton. -- Gabi S. (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 9 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. This topic lacks significant, independent coverage and notability. Features was kept in part so that semi-notable fictional locations such as this could have a place to be merged. Although I think merging is the right action, I would support deletion as a fallback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 16 September 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion being opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transia

Transia (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. Non-notable fictional country. No substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. There is no way to flesh the article out further then an in universe stub because there is no information to give it real world context or cover it's development and creation history Ridernyc (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC) *Delete. Not notable, no out-of-universe information.
~~Jakob _C2 00:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Changing my !vote to keep. There seems to be significant coverage within the references. --
Scream about the things I've broken) 00:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I would say this article is obscure, but notable. See Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. When I reviewed the sources, it appears some sources are from the intellectual property owner, but some are from third-parties. This is subject that is probably only of interest to a small group, but still of encyclopedic interest. I didn't create the article, but found it useful and have tried to add to it. 42of8 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have links to significant coverage in independent sources then please provide them. Ridernyc (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia policy, offline sources must be considered and must be taken on good faith
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. And compiling what other researchers have already said or posting summaries from primary sources is not original research. That said, with Transia, I wonder if it should be merged with the article on Wundagore as it could make both stronger articles. It seems that the two fictional locations are nearly always included together in the comics, however, in looking at the list of where each is included they don't always match up. So it seems like it would be prudent to keep the articles separate as it looks like information is available for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42of8 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You have not provided any sources so I'm not sure what this long rant is referring to. Ridernyc (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you have a problem with the sources in the article. 42of8 (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly. We need multiple independent reliable sources that cover the real world context of the subject in a non-trivial way. We have none that meet that criteria. Ridernyc (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequately sourced to show notability for a fictional country.
T
15:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge into the features article or delete it. There is nothing to establish independent notability, and the topic should only require a few sentences unless that criteria can be met. TTN (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe; Transia is already covered there with about as much detail as is justified by the available sources. Of the sources cited in the article, the Marvel Atlas is not independent, and Eternity Warriors, Comic Vine, and the Marvel Wiki are not reliable, so none of these help us with notability. As for reliable sources, this IGN article lists Transia one of Marvel's stand-ins for Eastern Europe, The Superhero Book calls it "one of Marvel's all-purpose Balkan backwaters," and this article talks about it a bit. The first two are only trivial mentions though, and the last is mostly just scans of primary sources, so I think a redirect/merge is the best option. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:27, 15 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe per Cerebellum. I think he said it all. Merging into Features seems appropriate for these semi-notable fictional locations, as they can't establish notability on their own. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asking for real wold details is relevant only if wee are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work (or, in this case, group of works. When a fictional universe is so complicated or important or has so many different manifestations, that w need to divide up the coverage (as we certainly do for this one), then the individual parts of it will some of them necessarily be about only the in-universe portions. Otherwise, it's like asking that a subarticle on someone's Scientific work doesn't talk about his Life--in a split article, that's inevitable. If one really thinks this way, we can solve it by rtaining all the content and merging it into asingle very long article, but that's not a useful arrangement. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 19 September 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. Article improved during the course of the discussion. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Barnett

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

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

No evidence of
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Shirt58 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Abstain due to article redone. Original delete rationale: Best known as lead in Growing Up With Gosling, which received some attention such as LA Times and Washington Post. The LA Times called him an "unknown actor". The WaPo because he is local to the area (looks like a syndication of the Maryland Gazette story). Not a bad start but not enough for
talk) 01:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. I can't find any sources. ~~NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ehh, it looks significantly better now, but half of those sources don't look reliable. Some of the others look trivial. But I guess it's not as clear-cut as it used to be. I'm ambivalent now, leaning toward keep. I guess I didn't know what to search for. Good work saving the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"half of those sources don't look reliable" -- Could you please clarify? By my count, 75% of them are either known news sources or else direct links to official cast lists, official festival selections/awards, or official sites of particular films/plays. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's most famous for his various Funny or Die episodes that he's written and starred in, not only the Growing Up With Gosling, but also including among others this celebrity Kickstarter spoof and this spoof of Sorkin's The Newsroom, both of which have gotten a lot of airplay and commentary around the web. I've found a dozen notable national references on him and his various activities, and I think I could scrap and redo the article as a decent Wiki article. I think given the fact that he's a writer, actor, producer, and comedian, all combined (with press coverage) create a sufficient notability. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a dozen notable national references .. great look forward to seeing them. It's about the refs. --
talk) 05:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. Found lots of national and international mentions. Have redone the article; will convert bare URLs now. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 15 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note: The article has now been completely redone. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good research work finding sources. The article has still some unsourced claims, unreliable sources and puffing up the topic in places, but I withdrew my vote and won't contest. The total picture points towards notability. --
talk) 15:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I drew everything from the links, so nothing is unsourced. I can't see anything that's really puffed -- the only plaudits are direct quotes from reliable sources. Unless you mean "Barnett's writing and acting on Funny or Die films has netted him national and international attention." That could go if necessary; I just wrote it as a summational transition to get that FoD section going smoothly without an abrupt break. Or unless you mean some stuff like "opened a door" etc.? -- that's all from the linked sources but could be re-worded I guess. In terms of the phrase "was singled out by Backstage", that's quite true -- Barnett was the only actor Backstage commented specifically favorably on in its review of the play [EDIT: Well, no, I'm slightly mistaken, didn't see the slight praise for another cast member, so I'll change that]. Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 16 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PCSX2

PCSX2 (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 program does not establish
reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of primary production details and technical details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Reviews from Geek.com (Ziff-Davis), ZDNet, PC World, Micro Mart (Dennis Publishing), Tech2 (Network 18). It seems notable, though I had to do quite a bit of searching to get this many hits, and I never heard of some of the sources before. Nonetheless, they all seem to be reliable sources, and I included publisher info in case anyone wants to validate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can those really be stated to truly establish it as a notable topic? Most of those sites seem to go over emulators pretty regularly, giving only brief overviews. Three of them are pretty much only confirming that it exists, much like a few other dozen programs. Two of them can count as reviews, but it really doesn't look like anything besides a couple brief sentences saying "it does stuff" can be gotten out of them. The overall coverage doesn't really seem to be widespread enough if sites with some focus on reporting most emulator-related news are the only ones available. They could certainly help the topic of Video game console emulator, or even Playstation console emulator should it get to that point, in showing their widespread appeal, only if people weren't so caught up in making these giant manuals and instead looked at it from a more scholarly perspective. It is a pretty interesting topic, but I guess people care more about which DirectX version works best. TTN (talk) 10:46, 2 September 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) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with you, but "this exists" is really all it takes to establish notability, though some hardliners might contest the presented articles as trivial. Consensus seems to indicate that this is what we want Wikipedia to be and these are the rules we want. I would prefer a more scholarly approach, but Wikipedia seems to favor a pop culture approach. This software is not as notable as I would like, and we'll never have a scholarly article on it, but it satisfies the absolute minimum requirements of notability. That's enough for me to vote "keep". Video game console emulator has much more potential for scholarly treatment, and it could probably reach Featured if someone worked very hard; however, I'm a PC game bigot, and you'd have to pay me to write a Featured article on console games/emulators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the tone, did some copy edits, converted long lists into concise tables, and added some sources. I think it looks pretty decent now, actually. It's certainly not my best work, but it's enough to convince me that the article is salvageable and worthwhile. I suspect that it will languish in Start-class limbo for the rest of its existence, but not every article has to be promoted to Good/Featured. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 3 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) 18:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a well-known emulator. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate; those sources are more than enough to make the article satisfy the
general notability guideline. Four of the websites NinjaRobotPirate mentions above have their own articles on Wikipedia, so those sources do make the article notable. In addition, two sources are from August 2012 and one is from as recently as last month. I don't get the nominator's rationale, especially the line "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary.". If you don't think anybody is going to add the sources to the article, then do it yourself. Either that, or the nominator should have performed a more thorough search for third-party sources. Just because an article doesn't reference third-pary sources doesn't mean there aren't any. Hey mid (contribs) 18:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – (first time posting to Wikipedia, so apologies for incorrect anything, and a disclosure - I'm on the PCSX2 team - avih). PCSX2 is the only working emulator for the best selling console of all time (as of now). It's open source and being downloaded thousands of times each day, so it's certainly well known (at least in emulation circles) and being used by many to relive the glory days of PS2. It improves on the PS2 in several ways, most notably adding HD resolutions for many games, and recently added wide-screen support for hundreds of games which originally didn't support it. I'm not sure I fully understand the arguments against keeping it listed, as I can interpret them as either 1. Not reputable/informative enough references (therefore suggesting the listing is inaccurate), or 2. Not important enough to be listed in Wikipedia. As for 1, I don't think anyone would claim that the listing is incorrect - it's open source and the development and status are in the open, and if it is incorrect, we (PCSX2 team) would be the first to want it more accurate. As for 2, as noted earlier, it's both a very important emulator due to its uniqueness and its high quality of emulation, and an innovative one by enhancing many old games with modern features (HD resolutions, wide-screen, quick-saves, pause, etc). If I could help with further clarifications or otherwise, please state your concerns. I'll be watching this space and will try to respond quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.65 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you. So would the main claim here be that there are not enough informative reputable independent sources acknowledging/referencing/reviewing/etc PCSX2, therefore it could suggest that PCSX2 is not deserving of an entry? If that's not the case, I'd greatly appreciate if you could spell the argument out for me, and also, if still required, please let us know how could we help remedy this, if at all. Also, what is the main derivative of this argument? That the entry is lacking in accuracy? or that PCSX2 itself is maybe too insignificant for Wikipedia? etc. Thanks in advance, -avih. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.65 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly right – we need more independent, reputable sources to identify PCSX2 as a significant topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. I dug up a few reviews, which provides a degree of notability, but more coverage would be helpful for both establishing notability and assisting our readers. The best thing you could do is to locate (or solicit) coverage from professional journalists. Blogs and other
self-published sources are generally considered not to be reliable sources, as they lack editorial control and fact-checking. An incomplete list of video game-related reliable sources is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. One important criterion is that the coverage must be substantial; trivial mentions, such as a single sentence, don't help to establish notability. Sources can be offline, paywalled, or non-English. I've already located five sources and added them to the article, which is usually enough to save articles from deletion. Still, it would be helpful to have more, and one editor has expressed his dissatisfaction with the quality of my sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks again very much for your helpfulness :) would the sources which Bosit(man) posted here be enough? (he's the guy which gave the interview at his links) How and when would a decision be taken on this, and would it also appear on this page? -avih. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.65 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around and found more sources for you people, most notable (and must be more than enough) the German version of the Chip magazine. Here you go: Chip.de PCSX2 reference , Digital Trends- Brandon Widder ,Tom's Guide - John Corpuz GoodGameHR , english version of the interview on our website, PS3news.com . Bosit (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should be more than enough. Usually, deletion debates last for one week, though they can be relisted to get further opinions if there is no consensus. I'll try to get around to adding these sources to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 14 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many RS identified in the above discussion. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:41, 20 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian pitch and putt union

Indian pitch and putt union (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 to meet wikipedia notability standards. Shovon (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:51, 20 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chot Ulep

Chot Ulep (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:Artist. NoyPiOka (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid I agree. It seems there is a problem here that took a while to get really noticed, that being that the user who created this is apparently also the subject of the article and has done basically nothing here other than
talk) 00:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree. Fails
WP:Artist.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:AUTOBIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalar Analysis (Finance). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 19 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wolfenden

Martin Wolfenden (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)

Much of the article is nonsense. The lead says he is an internet humorist, but the body says he is an animated character ... and the claim that he is an understudy for the Pope is just silliness. I see no evidence of notability per
WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is clearly some
WP:HOAX content in the article (the Pope part, at least). Is he a person or a cartoon? I think the whole thing is a joke at WP's expense. Appearing twice at the Edinburgh Fringe (even if true) is not enouigh for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Appears to lack sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:54, 20 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shovel buddy

Shovel buddy (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:N doubtful. Looks like it belongs in the Urban Dictionary rather than Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
talk 13:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
Wikipedia is not for things made up on the radio one day. Cnilep (talk) 02:06, 16 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Here We Are

Haha Here We Are (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:GNG. This article is a perfect candidate for an A9 deletion, however, the CSD has already been declined since it was tagged while the "band" had an article. This page needs to be gone with a quickness. Ish dar ian 10:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Ish dar ian 10:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook case of
WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:55, 20 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxies (journal)

Galaxies (journal) (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 new journal, too young to have become notable yet.
WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --
talk) 01:06, 16 September 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 RESULT: G5 deletion with no prejudice against recreation if notability can be shown.
talk) 11:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Kayadu

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG. I'm not sure if this is meant to be Kayadu per the title or Kadayu' per the opening sentence but either way I can find no reliable sources that discuss this person. There was a source - this one - but it seems to make no mention of the subject. Does the person exist as a mythological figure in Hinduism? Probably, yes. Are they a notable example? It seems not. Sitush (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Books confirms 3 or 4 sources (search on Kayadu Prahlada) but nothing in depth to write an encyclopedia article with or denotes notability. --
talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to ~~Prahlada for now~~, she has some significance in Narasimha Purana and we ought to develop our coverage on most of the Puranas, and possibly retarget a merge at a later time to a list of characters. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a G5 deletion now as we are now aware that this is the work of an indefinitely blocked sockmaster who hasn't shown much regard for our policies. So if
Doug or any other wants to close this AfD that way it's totally fine. If kept, the article would have to be rewritten completely to ensure that verifiability and POV concerns common with the editor's contributions aren't an issue. —SpacemanSpiff 03:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Me, too. I came across this article only because I was investigating the poor contributions and shortly after nominating it here I made the sock connection and reported to SPI. - Sitush (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to delete this as an article created by a sock until I found this AfD.
talk) 20:55, 18 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STEP Program (University of Florida)

STEP Program (University of Florida) (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:N. Even U. Florida's website doesn't know about this program (anymore). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Perhaps a
WP:HOAX??? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. The program has existed at some point per mentions of it here [27] and here[28]....William 23:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I trust it has, but two hits on U.Fl's own website mentioning STEP in passing aren't enough to establish notability. (I don't see it on the second page you mention.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is on both pages, barely. My comment was to make it clear, G3 wouldn't apply here. As to notability, this subject isn't my expertise but the lack of meaningful mentions around the internet make me think it is not notable....William 09:58, 18 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anulomana

Anulomana (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 or redirect to
talk) 10:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per my PROD: "this def is editor's analysis/synthesis among many meanings and ideas in the cited refs". DMacks (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive since added a reference which confirms that it is not my own analysis,i feel this reference is sufficient--Prestigiouzman (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You miss the point - this is still a dictionary definition. Where I find this word not used as a definition is in relationship to Ayurveda. There's no reason for a standalone article.
talk) 12:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The page is, and apparently is intended to be, a dictionary definition. Ayurveda does not appear to mention the term, so redirect would be somewhat inappropriate, unless new or merged content is added there. The word does not appear to be in Wiktionary, so transwiki might not be out of the question, but they would want it in Devanagari rather than Latin script. Cnilep (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devanagari script instated--Prestigiouzman (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as DicDef, consider soft redirect to WIkitionary. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Page-creator is indef'ed on wiktionary for both unacceptable-page creation and incivil behavior. DMacks (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Block also mentions "nonsense/gibberish"

Delete dictionary definition when the inadequately sourced content is removed. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
talk) 21:35, 21 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tar Ua Mhesa

Tar Ua Mhesa (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 sources for this anywhere. Even the self-published book by a probable sockpuppet of Wyvern
talk) 09:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: obvious hoax. Note the attempt to link back to Wikipedia through [30] and the rest of the bogus references. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears from the article that the origin of the "Tar Ua Mhesa" is the so-called Lebor Feasa Runda, a self-published book known to be a fraud (discussed here in the archives of the talk page for Druid) by an American white supremacist. I think it goes without saying that that's not a reliable source. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible we are being trolled. There have been numerous attempts to push Akins' related material onto Wikipedia, possibly all by Akins himself using sock puppets. Besides material on clans and tartans, read through
talk) 11:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah lord jaysus,shes at me again,and please dont try to link me to white supremacist traditions, im more into cross breeding, an adaption to counter a low density sunlight environment has its pro's and con's like all specializations,im more into malability,and in terms of my Article,i totally agree that Akins may not have a clue what he is talking about, but he seems to have came across a correct transcription of the acquisitions on page 102 of his book,As i have done on my other Articles which are under review,i will add more references to show sufficiently that it is not my own Analysis--Prestigiouzman (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
talk) 01:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 12:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per WP:GNG.
talk) 17:00, 16 September 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 per
WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

LLAOATS

LLAOATS (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:N, and might be a hoax. Only reference is a dead link; only hit on GBooks is a printing collection of WP pages; Google and DuckDuckGo hits all seem to be WP clones. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Blatant hoax. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:34, 15 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of NEDA tournament results

List of NEDA tournament results (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)

Wikipedia is not a directory. This list seems to be intended as a list of everyone who placed at any tournament in the National Educational Debate Association. There's no reason that notable schools or individuals can't be mentioned in the main article, but this list is overkill. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Igor Manko

Igor Manko (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 about this person is just deleted in ru.wiki because his notability is not proven enough by Russian sources. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 30 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 7 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) 03:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with ru.wiki's rules regarding notability. An AfD nomination should use en.wiki's rules, not refer to ru.wiki. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO could not find reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 10:34, 16 September 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 deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Abraham

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

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

Note worthy but not sure she needs her own article page, no other article links to her Lady Lotus (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 7 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) 03:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is
not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. My initial reading of the page was that it would easy to establish notability, but it turned out to be very difficult. I think it may be too early in her career to write a Wikipedia article. As it stands, this article seems overly promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 15 September 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) 03:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Midwest Skies and Sleepless Mondays

Midwest Skies and Sleepless Mondays (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 demo. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 7 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) 03:10, 15 September 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) 03:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Tam O'Shanter Ridge, Nova Scotia

Tam O'Shanter Ridge, Nova Scotia (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)

Article is about a subdivision in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. It has an odd history. Shortly after creation, the name of the place was modified to be "Millers Mountain" and stayed that way until I recently changed it back. I can find no place known by "Millers Mountain" or any variation of it in the Dartmouth area. As Tam O'Shanter Ridge, I cannot find significant coverage of this subdivision. This source indicates it was a subdivision built in 1960. I can find no evidence that this was previously a town or village that amalgamated into Dartmouth. If it were hitorically such a place, that would make it notable. Given it is a subdivision with no significant coverage, I don't see this as notable. Whpq (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 7 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) 03:06, 15 September 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 Bangalore. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions in Bangalore

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

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

It doesn't help to have a list of diplomatic missions in Bangalore if none of them are linked. Also I don't think it's of any use to anyone other than to diplomats (and I think they already have a paper book with the information.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puntaalpo (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 04:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge to Bangalore. The existence of Consulate Generals is notable, but can easily be mentioned in the main city article as it really only needs a single sentence. The existence of honorary consulates, trade commissions and virtual trade commissions aren't really that notable as often times an honorary consulate is just someone operating out of their own home. So in summary mention the Consulate Generals of France, Germany (linked) and Britain; possibly the consulates of Japan and Israel; no need to mention the rest. Ravendrop 03:50, 7 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, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haynes Aero Skyblazer

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Skyblazer Flying Car

Haynes Aero Skyblazer (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)

Project which never got off the ground. Sourcing is paltry and includes what are basically non-entries, previous close was erroneous--article has not been salvaged. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 3 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) 01:49, 7 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) 02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short summary to
WP:CRYSTAL infrastucture projects is that a subject should not have more than an article on the project generally until it is legally authorised and funded, or at least has a very goood prospect of that. As a (probably) failed project, I would suggest that a brief summary be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderlist

Wunderlist (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)

CSD was declined. Non notable organisation. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:ORG. Not much else to say. scope_creep talk 15:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or move to Wunderlist (software) might clear up some of the confusion. The software is notable, the company probably isn't, and the article name doesn't distinguish the two.Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:38, 3 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) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and possibly move per Lesser Cartographies, those sources provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:27, 14 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) 02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as several reliable independent sources have been found on the software. Zach Vega (talk to me) 17:30, 15 September 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) 03:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

CDVU+

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

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

Not notable, written like an advertisement, and misleading (it is not a “technology”; it is simply a series of regular
talk) 12:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 12:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 August 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) 01:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Seems notable per Geek.com, Reuters, Engadget, IT Media (Japanese), and Gizmodo. I've removed most of the promotional material. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it is not a “technology”. From the Gizmodo article you linked: You know what I hate? When marketing innovations are disguised as new technologies.
talk) 13:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, you're right. I've edited the article to remove the bit about being a technology. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:49, 21 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) 02:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A.T.Mödell

A.T.Mödell (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 couldn't establish that they meet
WP:NMUSIC. Appears to be self-promotion. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Reading the criteria, this page at least meet points 1 and 5 (others could be not verifiable since they are only online publications). Point 1 is met by publications named "Zillo" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillo, with a scan of the page at https://sphotos-b-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/943259_564243260273687_1391907407_n.jpg) and "Sonic Seducer" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Seducer, with a scan of the article at https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/p480x480/397971_10151407283583321_447318756_n.jpg). Point 5 is met with the publication of one physical media work with Danse Macabre, which can be verified on multiple online shops (Amazon, for example: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalyptophilia-T-Modell/dp/B00CF9P57M/ref=sr_1_18_bnp_1_aud?ie=UTF8&qid=1378076149&sr=8-18&keywords=a.t.m%C3%B6dell). Information about Danse Macabre can be read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danse_Macabre_Records. Liyakx (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 31 August 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) 01:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I found three online reviews for this band - an Apocalyptophilia review by Side Line, which seems at least marginally reliable, and reviews for both Apocalyptophilia and Noise Therapy on Brutal Resonance, which looks solidy reliable (has a legitimate editorial staff according to its about page). It's difficult to assess the reliability of the print sources linked by Liyakx - those two magazines seems like solid sources, but I can't tell if the articles constitute significant coverage or are just promotional. Can any German speakers read them and weigh in? Either way, I feel confident that this band meets the
WP:NMUSIC. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:39, 14 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) 02:48, 15 September 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) 03:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Derrick Strickland

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

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

No signs that this "entertainment industry professional" meets the
criteria for inclusion. No references that mention him, only links to pages for which he purportedly was the photographer (but with no credit on the page to verify that). No independent sources found providing significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 29 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 7 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) 01:36, 15 September 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 List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons)

Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 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) 14:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fallback position of merge this non-notable item into a list of other non-notable fictional things has just resulted in a decades worth of unencyclopedic lists. Ridernyc (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to parent concept, which is
Seelie Court in celtic mythology. Better a robust article covering the longtiudinal portrayals than piecemeal coverage. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. A redirect or merge to
Seelie Court would also be acceptable, but I think deletion is more appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge with
Seelie Court in celtic mythology. Deletion should be last resort. 42of8 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

transwiki to a fanboy site that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, content fails
Seelie Court, but "In popular culture" trivia clean up is an issue out of scope for this forum.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Well yeah, some of us don't draw some arbitrary pop-culture line at 1900. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 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) 01:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Casliber. Also note that none of the delete votes above adequately justifies why a merge would not be the most policy-based alternative under
WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 15 September 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) 19:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Frances

Andrew Frances (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 individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Fails
WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched and found no evidence of notability that would pass
talk) 06:05, 8 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) 01:32, 15 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Hook

Alien Hook (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
overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 8 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) 01:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 16 September 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 quorum -
NPASR. —Darkwind (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Sandstorm (Transformers)

Sandstorm (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 is a collection of primary details without anything to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sandstorm had a notable role in the Transformers mythos, and the article covers this fairly well. None of the other Triple Changer articles are nominated for deletion, so why single out Sandstorm? At the very least, merge or redirect to
Triple Changer. JIP | Talk 19:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It needs reliable sources discussing it from a real world view in order to be considered notable. If it truly is important, information on the development of the character, reception to the character, and any real world impact involving the character should be available. If not, Wikia is a better place for the information. TTN (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Triple Changer. This belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 30 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 7 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) 01:29, 15 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Men's Glee Club

University of Michigan Men's Glee Club (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)

Relies mainly on self-published sources. A Google News search turns up nothing likely, and Google itself doesn't aooear to show up any good sources Mdann52 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student club at a single school, fails
WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:GNG per sources in the article and this, this, this, this, this and many other hits found in a news and book search. Is calling the University of Michigan a "school" a joke? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at least for now. The sources found by Ritchie333 are either all
~~WP:RSes can be found that cover the club and not one of the club's concerts then I'd gladly change my vote. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply
]

I don't think you checked the sources carefully, I'm afraid. For example, this Herald News Source clearly states "There’s a lot to be said about them. They’re one of the most prestigious and one of the oldest men’s glee clubs in the country and this is the last stop on their winter tour. They’re going to be performing several numbers. They will definitely be something to see.”
Glee Club (both of which are definitely notable entities), come to think of it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Please don't do that. I did check all the sources carefully before I placed my !vote. I said "The second one is borderline - it interviews somebody representing another club which is hosting UofM for a concert, but it's still basically a gig list." That's the Herald News article. I ask myself would the Herald News article be published if the concert wasn't going to happen? In this case the answer is no. It's not like a features writer said "I know, I'll write an article on the UofM Men's Glee Club!" The article is about the concert, and they are hyping the Glee Club to promote the concert, not because the club is so awesome. "The Naperville Men’s Glee Club hosts the renowned Michigan Men’s Glee Club at a concert at 7:30 p.m. Feb. 4 on the campus of North Central College in Naperville." That tells you all you need to know about this article. And please go into more detail to explain why a University Songbook, published by the University in question, containing songs sung at the University, is not a SPS? This particular reference does nothing to establish notability, in my opinion.

For the new "Powerful Voices" reference, since it's not online, assuming you have access to it, use it to improve the article, and I'll consider changing my vote. But without knowing to what extent the subject of this article is covered in that particular source, I have no indication that it's notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Powerful Voices" reference is online, as can be seen by clicking on the link I provided, and if you do a Google Books search using more creative terms than just the article name, you will find it and several others - "michigan glee club tour" is a particularly effective term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the Google preview of the Powerful Voices reference (I got lost in the big "No ebook available" text on the left side), and I agree that it could be used to source a few pieces of information for the article. That's one reference, but I still don't see "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by
WP:N. It's not my responsibility to do the searching and cite the article, it's the responsibility of those who assert that it's notable. Put more content into the article! ;) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, go and have a look at the article now then. However, in sourcing it, I've discovered that not only do I think it passes
WP:BAND criteria #6 by having Bob McGrath, Ara Berberian and Jeff Marx (amongst others) as former members, and it passes criteria #9 by winning the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod - twice! Do you still want to vote "delete"? ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
See below. ;) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:24, 10 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ritchie333, and for touring internationally since 1955,and for being the oldest student organization at a world-renowned university. Edison (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Per the excellent article/expansion of
WP:BAND argument. Way to go! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The silly thing is, the only serious problem with the article is that nobody writing it cited any sources as they were doing so. Had they done that, this article would be at
GAN, not AfD! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 10 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) 01:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have finished cleaning up the article. AFAIK, absolutely everything is now sourced and I've assessed it as B-class. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-op society stores (Kuwait)

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 stores, reference is to a website that lists "co op societies" nothing to tell if they're notable or not. Claim of hiring unskilled workers is libelous most probably since the reference is to someone's blog. Seems like it's being written as a hit piece on the stores, and it's only one line. Caffeyw (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no assertion of notability, and even less context. As an average American on the English Wikipedia, I have no idea what the article is trying to communicate. Please do not get me wrong, as I have also proposed deletion, we on Wikipedia are not trying to devastate all of your work, but are rather trying to get you to improve the quality of it. We all have learned our lessons, but if you do not try to revert your mistakes, others may take offense to it. Carwile2 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think (and certainly hope) that the average American on the English Wikipedia has good enough English comprehension to understand what this article is trying to communicate.
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You, sir, do not understand my message. Here is a sentence from the article with my own annotations:

Now days,The stores have deviated from there original purpose (From what original purpose to serving what purpose now?).They (Who?) have been hiring unskilled workers for some parties (What parties?) to win their votes (For what election?).

Do I know what is going on in the Middle East? Yes! But these articles on Wikipedia should not require this much reading between the lines. Carwile2 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep My greatest concern is that this article is being used as a sort of
talk) 13:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep—It's clearly notable, there's a million news articles that cover these, but indeed the current article is in a pretty bad shape. However, we shouldn't delete - we should improve the article. I'll watchlist it and consider working on it if it survives.
WP:ATD. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I've added a primary ref and fleshed it out a little.
talk) 19:38, 6 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 7 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) 01:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's bring this back out into the light. I am still not convinced of notability, and the sources give me even more doubt. The first one just lists stores, while the latter was just used for being restated in the article. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 19:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the many hundreds of further sources found by the news, book and academic paper searches that I linked above? Notability doesn't depend on the sources currently cited, but on the sources that exist.
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I'm not even trying hard, and there seem to be LOTS of sources on this: 1 2 3 4. I'm honestly not sure why you remain unconvinced. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above.
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Phil, Please don't vote twice, you are only allowed one vote. Also, if you are convinced of the notability, bring forth sources, please. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 00:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? That is my first and only vote.
Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 16 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auditors of Reality

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

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

Declined prod. The original reason was Unsourced, inferences from the source novels are likely largely
WP:GNG) it was declined because It seems that much of this is sourceable and are import characters in very well known series of novel. A fuller discussion is needed. There is content which is sourceable and encyclopaedic here. A merge might be a possible outcome. No vote from me. Salix (talk): 11:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my prod nomination cited above. There's no third-party sourcing that would make this obscure subtopic notable, and as a whole this fails
WP:NOTPLOT hard. Such content is for fan wikis, not an encyclopedia. Sandstein 18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Discworld gods#Anthropomorphic personifications seems the most appropriate place.--Salix (talk): 18:56, 30 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at Talk:Discworld which may get a few more people to the discussion.--User:Salix alba (talk): 06:25, 8 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) 01:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no sources at all on the article. Beyond that, I see no assertion these have any notability outside of the novels. I have read most of the discworld novels, and I do not think these are ever major enough characters to need an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 16 September 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) 20:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Quest I: In the 27th Century

Star Quest I: In the 27th Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "Star Quest I: In the 27th Century" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Not notable enough. Poor resources. Knight rider best (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per HellKnowz. The new sources added do not establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight rider best (talk • contribs) 07:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Knight rider best (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as non-notable. I've looked at this before and I can't find any reliable, independent sources (like
WP:GNG. Mobygames doesn't list any printed sources of the time either (although it's not excluded there could be). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I reviewed the new sources added and none pass significant coverage bar, they are simple generic description/overview entries with no critical evaluation. Furthermore, none of the sites appear to be reliable sources and they don't provide any editorial process or overview to suggest otherwise. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:13, 30 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on - I just got in touch with the guy behind the studio that made the game about any media coverage he was aware of; There is www.old-games.com/download/2886/star-quest-i-in-the (I'm hitting the blacklist but cannot find why), of dubious reliability, but more importantly, reviewed in PC Gamer (an obviously reliable dedicated magazine), and was even included on one of their demo CDs, and some other contemporary publications. I'm trying to find more information about these sources, so don't kill this one just yet. :) ·
✉ 23:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious merge to the article on the company that made the game, Virtual Adventures Inc.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there is coverage of the game in various sources including PC Games, July 96 issue. It just makes more sense to cover it as part of the article on the company that makes the game (and others). Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coverage of the company itself, only of its notable product. It should be merged here if anywhere. :) ·
✉ 00:20, 12 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) 01:23, 15 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Horse Park

North Dakota Horse Park (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 Horse racing venue in ND that just reopened after 2 years closed. Caffeyw (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's small like many things in North Dakota, but it's an institution, and one of only two horse parks in the state. Horse race venues are well established as a topic of interest on Wikipedia. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:38, 30 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find independent, reliable sources that show notability for this venue. Alexwcovington, can you provide these? All of the mentions I find are just minor mentions/blurbs saying there is going to be racing there such and such weekend, and everyone should come out and spend their money - these do not make a place notable. Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Racetracks are major athletic venues, and as notable as other such venues--of course, as for any such venue, most of the refs will be about the events held there--that's what the very purpose of an athletic venue is. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 14 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) 01:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources to establish notability, e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] You're not likely to find a horse track in the US that doesn't satisfy GNG. Toohool (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newbury & District

Newbury & District (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 bus company, Fails
WP:CORP -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If kept the article should be Newbury & District Ltd, but the article is essentially a list of bus routes at Newbury. We ddi a major cull on those a couple of months back. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 10 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, -Davey2010T 01:08, 15 September 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) 20:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kollywood 100 crore club

Kollywood 100 crore club (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)

Article written based soley on Times Of India article where they come up with the term R-100 crore club. All information is straight from the article. Nothing to show this is a widely accepted mark, or anything more then a newspaper article being made into a Wiki article. Wording is even pulled from the article itself. Also note sure why user keeps calling it Kollywood instead of Bollywood. Caffeyw (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 14:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: It goes in line with
Bollywood Hundred Crore Club. And Kollywood is different from Bollywood and i see no reason why it should be wrongly called as Bollywood. Do you have one? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I thought it was a typo, my mistake, either way all this article is, is a copy of the Times of India article masquerading as a Wiki article. Everything is straight from the one article, and it isn't clear that this is a standard of measure outside of the article. As for the Bollywood Hundred Crore Club I haven't viewed that page, but if it's based off the same premise (ie solely based on an article on Bollywood Hundred Crore Club and not an accepted standard) it might not meet GNG either. Caffeyw (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Bollywood Hundred Crore Club seems more like an accepted standard, I'm still not sure with Kollywood as I'm not finding the same type of level of notability of the term as there is with the Bollywood cousin. Caffeyw (talk) 08:09, 31 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is used by extension; I see a few other uses, such as iflickz, tho not by itself a reliable source for notability , does indicate accepted usage. BTW, there seems to be a 3rd entry, Vishwaroopam; the list will necessarily be smaller as Tamil film is a smaller industry. this from the same less than reliable source shows the two terms compared, as also at here. Even such sources can establish common use. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 14 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) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would be better to have something similar to
List of highest-grossing Bollywood films for Tamil films if the sourcing exists.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:35, 23 September 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) 20:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Heard Stadium

Raymond Heard Stadium (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 GNG, Non-notable Stadium, lacks any sources for any of the claims given. Previously marked as needing references/notability by another user. Caffeyw (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Constructed in 1976, so non-routine coverage predates Google, but searching revealed nothing except
WP:ROUTINE coverage of events being held there. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:14, 30 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep I'm not sure that this is as major a sports venue as some, but given the dates , we should not delete, in the expectation that further information will be found. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 14 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) 01:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I don't understand. If something is old, it is exempt from
WP:RS that just aren't available online? Am I missing some new policies? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:00, 17 September 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. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ULM Softball Complex

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 softball complex. All information is directly primary sourced. Nothing notable about it. Caffeyw (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I could find exactly one non-[WP:ROUTINE] source for this... New ULM softball complex expected to help local economy, and one isn't enough. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the home venue for an
Division I varsity athletic team. Also, keep in mind that the main local newspaper for the Monroe area, The News-Star, hides it's articles behind paywalls, making accessibility to a primary source of coverage a problem. FWIW, the editor who nominated this article for deletion (Caffeyw) appears to be a very new editor, who has already committed several deletion-related faux pas on Wikipedia. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Is there a consensus somewhere that I've missed that just because NCAA softball games are played there that it is a notable building? Caffeyw (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has a very serious problem attracting and retaining women editors, and expanded coverage of women's sport is an important initiative underway to address this problem.
UMass Softball Complex, Red and Charline McCombs Field (Texas), Robert E. Taylor Stadium (Maryland), Ohio Softball Field (Ohio), Cougar Softball Stadium (Houston), Brooks Park (Wash & Jeff), Ebert Field (W. Mich), etc. This AfD would undermine substantial efforts underway to expand Wikipedia's coverage of women's sport (and thereby attract and retain women editors). Also, I took a few minutes to sift through the coverage and did find a couple of local articles that go beyond routine. See, e.g., (1) "New ULM softball complex expected to help local economy", KNOW, 2011; (2) "Mayor, City Council Present $250,000 Check to University of Louisiana at Monroe for University Park Upgrades", US Fed News, July 31, 2010 (available through Newsbank's "newslibrary.com"). Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment—I applaud any effort which attracts and retains editors, regardless of their gender, as long as the efforts follow WP policies and guidelines. Creating articles on non-notable sports stadiums, and then keeping them after they are nominated for AfD, is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. While your effort is noble, its nobility does not confer a licence to ignore key policies like
WP:RS. I suggest you put the information on the stadiums in the article on the team that plays there, and focus your efforts on creating articles which meet the notability guidelines, and expanding articles that already exist. There's plenty of stubs
on notable softball-related topics.
Self-reply Comment—For an example of what I'm proposing above, see the treatment of
OSU Softball Complex. I'm really tempted, depending on how this AfD turns out, to do the same thing for all the articles you've listed above. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: "While your effort is noble ..." The effort isn't mine. I've not created or edited any of them. Like you, I'm simply offering my assessment . In my view, the news coverage of the ULM facility makes for a borderline case under
WP:GNG, and I tip toward "Keep" due to the concerns noted above with respect to retaining women editors and better developing women's sports topics. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Apologies, I assumed you were somehow connected with/participating in the effort. Could you share the non-
WP:ROUTINE news coverage you found? As I stated in my !vote, I could only find one article that was borderline routine. If there's more, then it would change my thinking on this. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Google News Archive and Newsbank Newslibrary searches (using multiple variations on the facility's name) turn up hundreds of hits, albeit mostly routine. I spent just a few minutes sifting and found a couple of non-routine articles (both cited above). If I had time to sift further, I'd expect there to be more, but already enough IMO for reasons stated above. Cbl62 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted (I cast no !vote) please redirect to
talk) 17:59, 5 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not particularly see what this has to do with the need to attract women editors, except that women as well as men play softball, as is true for most sports and other significant activities. I'd expect there are very few topics here that women as well as men would not be interested in. But the venue is notable, as are other major athletic venues, including those at major universities with a famous emphasis on sports. Of course the great majority of news hits for any athletic venue will be for the events there: they are built for that very purpose. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Can you share your reasoning behind the statement "But the venue is notable, as are other major athletic venues, including those at major universities with a famous emphasis on sports."? I agree that any subject that can meet the requirements of
WP:ROUTINE
.

For me it's really simple: If there was coverage on the stadium itself, instead of events occurring at the stadium, then it would be notable. Without such coverage, it's not. And I have not seen, nor been shown, such coverage. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:08, 17 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) 01:18, 15 September 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) 20:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hjellbrekke

Johannes Hjellbrekke (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)

can't see him meeting WP:PROF. very few gnews or gbooks hits. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 30 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He appears to not pass
WP:PROF#C1 but I don't know whether this is an area that might be badly covered by Google scholar or not generally have many citations, explaining the low numbers. And as former editor-in-chief of an obscure 20-year-old journal, he might pass #C8 but I'd need to know more about how significant the journal is and how wide a pool of people the editor is chosen from to be convinced by that. So while there's still plenty of room to change my mind, I'm not yet convinced of a pass of any WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep GScholar and SSCI have an anglo-american bias, and do not include most of the journals that would cite an article on Norwegian economics. I think the journal he was editor of is a significant national journal in the field, and he's a full professor at a major university. Put together, that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

almost all Scandinavian academics publish in English. This academic is also a visiting professor at a number of English language universities, you just can't says sources exist without showing them. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 16 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) 01:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DGG ( talk ). I think there is enough notability to achieve an article. There seems to have a fairly large number of GHits on the Google Norway. scope_creep talk 17:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

could you please show actual examples of sources? LibStar (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, he is a professor in sociology at the
talk) 08:35, 18 September 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 video game console emulators. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NeoRAGEx

NeoRAGEx (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 program does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:56, 7 September 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) 16:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A redirect to List of video game console emulators would also be acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 8 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) 01:10, 15 September 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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Child (band)

Wild Child (band) (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)

Locally notable band, but does not meet notability
WP:BAND Dloh cierekim 03:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 03:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per nom. Article mostly fails
WP:BAND. ///EuroCarGT 03:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I found this coverage - I'd say they may have got beyond 'locally notable': [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. --Michig (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those sources, still don't meet
WP:GNG. did you add the sourcing to the article? If not, I will if we keep the thing. Thanks again for finding what I missed! Dloh cierekim 14:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Are these just reviews from areas where they toured? If so, they aren't really helping to raise coverage to a significant level. Await further commentary. Dloh cierekim 14:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1 of
WP:GNG, so if the subject meets the latter it will also meet the former. They may be reviews from areas where they toured, but I don't see why that would be an issue. It's marginal, I think, whether there's enough there, but bearing in mind that a Google search probably won't find all coverage that exists, I would err on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 17:37, 30 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added this additional source I found. Combined with the sources Michig noted, it's possibly enough to squeak by
WP:BAND criterion #1, and, like Michig, I would err on the side of keeping this one. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 10 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) 01:07, 15 September 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) 20:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Alliance

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

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

No coverage in independent, third-party sources. ghits limited to press releases. Non-notable organization. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~ User:brholden I rewrote this into past tense. This was a real organization that put together a large trade show. It was composed of major industry organizations. The article is factual, and there is no particular reason to delete it.

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) 01:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in this article that asserts any notability. scope_creep talk 16:15, 03 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Although probably yes and yes to the last two comments. It did seem to exist and a case could be made that it deserves a mention somewhere on Wikipedia. The question is if it really did exist but if it was independently notable enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines, and that seems "no". Since it seems defunct after a couple years, probably will never get notable enough. Normally I would suggest a merge, but there seems not much content here worth merging (nothing sourced to a citation at all, just a bunch of urls to top-level web sites and a press release). The article seems to be in marketingspeak? From the list of companies, it might have something to do with computer networking or telecommunications perhaps. Probably not solutions nor ecosystems so that language is just confusing to normal readers. Or maybe it dealt with toy "building blocks", or was a tourist organization that organized groups to view some kind of mountains? :-) At the risk of "scope creep" (the concept, not the user) SCOPE Alliance has some similar verbiage and had a notability tag for three years. Maybe both could be merged into Commercial off-the-shelf although that article seems to be about a particular US Government meaning of the term, and not sure this group was only selling to the US Government or if that article should be broadened to cover the more generic meaning of the term. W Nowicki (talk) 23:18, 15 September 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) 20:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Eye of Avalon

Evil Eye of Avalon (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 fictional item from the Marvel Universe. No real world context and I severally doubt sources exist to establish real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A large number of pages link this this page. It is notable. Where did you search for sources? I found several secondary and tertiary sources doing a quick google search. The article can be expanded and sources added. 42of8 (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say the same exact thing in everyone of these debates I am now forced to cut and paste a very long detailed reply to you in all of these AFDs. 42of8, please read
WP:GNG. As you read them please keep in mind we also need real world context in the article. For example the creator saying something like "I needed a super strong metal, and it needed a cool name so I took the name Prometheus and add "um" to the end of it." In order to be encyclopedia the articles need to be about our real world and how the subjects were developed and published not just summaries of their fictional elements in a fictional universe. Sorry but I'm tired of you repling with the same basic reply of WP:Ilikeit and heres a bunch of primary, unreliable sources that I found in Google that just mention the subject in passing and have no real world information about the subject. It's the same over and over again, and I have repeatedly taken the time to explain to you why these sources fall short and then in the next AFD there is your same exact argument again. I like it and heres a bunch of stuff I found in Google. Ridernyc (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe, though deletion is still acceptable to me. I don't think this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article, and a merge would solve that issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to not establishing notability. TTN (talk) 16:22, 9 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) 01:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sourcing. Could be merged, as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:32, 15 September 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) 20:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoffy

Zoffy (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
overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. I'm open to suggestions on redirects or merges, but I don't see anything obvious except for the franchise itself. In that case, a redirect to Ultraman seems acceptable as an alternative. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 8 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) 00:49, 15 September 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 Multipath routing. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capillary routing

Capillary routing (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 research topic (see talk page for lit review). Basically five papers published within months of each other, each with a slightly different take on the same idea. Most-cited paper received 6 citations. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate article. The information in such sources should be nice to have somewhere, but it seems they all stem from the same research group, so we have no secondary usage of the term. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:46, 11 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) 00:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:PRESERVE. As capillary routing is an optimization algorithm for spread routing in the context of multi-path routing, Multipath routing seems the best target. A redirect is warranted as well, since this is a reasonable search term. There is no prejudice to recreation of this article should multiple independent reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radioboxer

Radioboxer (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 band. Only claim to notability is winning a local band of the year contest. Ridernyc (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search for news sources brought up a number of hits in the Miami Herald, which seems to like them, but nothing else of any interest. For
WP:NBAND you really need national coverage and even just one top 100 hit (though the are always exceptions like Dumpy's Rusty Nuts). Anyway, as the band have now split up ([46]), I don't think they'll be too bothered about having Wikipedia presence anymore. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 8 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) 00:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band fulfills none of
WP:MUS. Zach Vega (talk to me) 17:37, 15 September 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_September_15&oldid=1142630330"