Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 20

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) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James r hollands

James r hollands (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 does not sufficiently indicate how the subject is

• Delete Fails
  WP:NMUSIC.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Self-promotion, therefore fails Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well as GNG, SIGCOV, etc, etc. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He fails
  didn't see anything special online. If something has changed, or we find more information, I'd be willing to change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The google search results don't show any
  WP:N at present. In future, he may be notable and could merit his own article but not at the present time. --Artene50 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per above - SimonLyall (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:COMPOSER may have been met had he won either of these awards [11] [12], but he didn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2014 (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.  Sandstein  20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Science in Clinical Optometry by Salus University

Master of Science in Clinical Optometry by Salus University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article duplicates

• Delete. Way too specific of an article. Individual degree programs are not notable or encylopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  we have almost always deleted such articles about individual programs. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2014 (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.  Sandstein  20:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Datacoin

Datacoin (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 altcoin, fails

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/datacoin-dtc-features-blockchain-data-003900184.html http://www.kswo.com/story/24482545/datacoin-dtc-features-in-blockchain-data-storage-and-web-apps-embedded-in-blockchain http://news.silobreaker.com/datacoin-dtc-features-inblockchain-data-storage-and-web-apps-embedded-in-blockchain-5_2267672482729164844 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.192.199 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Nom fails
  WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search reveals PR, forum posts and blogs, this heavy.com article, but not enough significant RS coverage to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can confirm Dialectric's findings above. No notability. Also, heavy.com should not be considered a serious news source. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG per nom. KonveyorBelt 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability by
  WP:WEBSITE. I might consider heavy.com as a weak reliable source, as these styles of “online tabloid journalism” typically seem to employ editors and writers, and I am not aware of their posting articles as unlabeled paid placement; however, by itself, it doesn't establish notability. The only clearly reliable sources I found that mention datacoin are posting a press release. ––Agyle (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to
  WP:TOOSOON. There's no reason to hide to remove this content from view, as it doesn't contain COPYVIO nor BLP stuff, but it lacks verifiability. Some of the content may be useful for an article about alternate diginal coins, though, which is a notable topic. Diego (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Agree and this doesn't conflict with delete votes above, besides potentially isn't enough to request deletion. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no guidelines in place currently cover moves from afd to draft. I suggest such moves only be considered when the article in question meets the
    Incubation criteria set by the Article Incubator project, as it is substantially similar to draft. Datacoin does not appear to meet this criteria.Dialectric (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Whether the article has changed or expanded since its creation is irrelevant as Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. Clairvoyant predictions that the article is unlikely to be expanded in the future should be ignored. James500 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good sources for this piece of legislation do exist. See, for example, the Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, published by West. Primary legislation is very unlikely to be non-notable. In fact, there is a strong case for arguing that primary legislation is inherently notable and should have its own SNG. The worst case scenario for this article is to merge it into a broader article on this area of the law or on whichever Code it is part of. Deletion is out of the question. James500 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• This enactment may be referred to by other designations. It is, for example, sections 1 to 16 of 2006 c 205. It is also HB 2840 (2006). James500 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is a report on this Act commissioned by the government of Conneticut. A number of pdf documents published by Universities come up in Google searches. James500 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC) And Google Scholar identifies an article at 59 Oklahoma Law Review 319 that discusses this Act. James500 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG and by the number of users above there seems to be more sources that can be added to the article.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – totally redundant to
  Kelsey Smith-Briggs and does not sufficiently pass WP:GNG to warrant its own article. Epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A biography is not an appropriate place to discuss a piece of legislation (with the possible exception of post office renaming Acts). Apart from its short title, this piece of legislation is not merely a memorial to that person. It seems to me that GNG needs to be urgently rewritten to stop people from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it is not significant. James500 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

boldness)? Since this law article still just duplicates what already exists in Briggs's article, unless more substantial information about the law can be found, perhaps the best thing to do is merge both into one new article titled Death of Kelsey Smith-Briggs (like we do for other child deaths like Death of Caylee Anthony or Murder of Adam Walsh) because she is not notable, the way she died is. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This enactment will presumably be used in cases that have no connection to the original murder. As long as a piece of legislation is in force it is a live issue for everyone in the jurisdiction to which it applies. If I was looking for a merger target, it would be an article that was primarily about the law of Oklahoma. It may be that other articles should be unmerged, but I can't comment without looking at them. I was under the impression that I had found more substantial information about the enactment. James500 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD has been running for twelve days without being relisted or closed. An AfD is only suppossed to run for seven days. There is no consensus for deletion, merger or redirection and there is no realistic prospect that such a consensus will form. It is absolutely clear that there will never be a consensus for deletion. I suggest that this AfD should just be closed as "no consensus". If editors want to propose mergers (and this is a merger proposal masquerading as an AfD) let them do it through the correct procedure. I am tempted to suggest that this should be closed as "speedy keep" on grounds that no one appears to have unequivocally argued for deletion (the IP placed an AfD tag in response to his unnilateral merger being reversed, so I infer that what he is really asking for is a merger) and it would, indeed, be preposterous to do so. James500 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2014 (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) 02:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunisa Jett

Sunisa Jett (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)

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai actress and model. The only references there have ever been in the article, to a blog and another Wiki, have been removed for not being reliable sources, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced
  WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I note that the article, along with several others nominated by the nominator at much the same time, is an an unsourced BLP only because the nominator removed the existing sources immediately before nominating it. A quick glance suggests that the sources were just as unreliable as the nominator has stated - but, in this kind of situation, it is almost always better to leave the links in, point out their unreliability in the nomination and leave the rest of us to make up our own minds (the one real exception is if the linked page contains malware or falls under Wikipedia blacklisting criteria). PWilkinson (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "source" was a blog, and the removal of it is mentioned in the nomination, so checking the "reference" can be easily done through the page history (through the direct link to it that is prominently featured in the nomination...). Thomas.W ^{talk to me}

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) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atichart Chumnanon

Atichart Chumnanon (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)

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai actor and model. The only reference there has ever been in the article, to another Wiki, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per NOM unsourced BLP.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced
  WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2014 (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) 02:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rattapoom Toekongsap

Rattapoom Toekongsap (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)

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai "actor, singer and model". The only reference there has ever been in the article, to another Wiki, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced
  WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If anyone were interested enough to incorporate some of the available sources into the article we could avoid deletion. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2014 (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) 02:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Supreeleela

Esther Supreeleela (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)

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai actress. The only reference there has ever been in the article, to another Wiki, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced
  WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2014 (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) 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikoy Morales

Mikoy Morales (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)

Totally unsourced BLP about Filipino "actor, singer and model". The only reference there was in the article, to a fanblog on Blogspot, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced
  WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a
  disaster. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

P.S. I removed a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2014 (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) 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Scott (Thai actor)

Louis Scott (Thai actor) (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)

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai "actor, singer and model". The only reference there has ever been in the article, to another Wiki, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced
  WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2014 (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) 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Silverstone

Phillip Silverstone (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 on former wine merchant and broadcaster of borderline notability at best. Apparent autobiography, article was promotional. Unsourced claims and puffery were removed. Subject, after repeatedly blanking the text, now requests deletion[13], which should be granted per

• Comment After filing this AfD, it came to my attention that this is a re-creation of an article that was deleted per a previous AfD discussion.WP:Articles_for_deletion/Phillip_Silverstone. Apparently nobody noticed when this article was re-created two months after the 2008 deletion. This article should be Speedily deleted and salted. The same account that created this article, which was indef blocked for sockpuppetry, also created Phillip silverstone, which was speedily deleted and should also be salted. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. This article as it stands isn't eligible for speedy deletion (it wasn't created
  WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I edited it extensively to try to salvage it, but that was not satisfactory to the subject, who persistently blanked the page and restored the puffy version. I was contemplating nominating it for deletion myself, and the subject's wish to have it deleted clinched it for me. Please note that while the subject did make a legal threat, he also explicitly asked for it to be deleted, and I think we should honor his wishes irrespective of his conduct, per

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Per subject request and individual seems of marginal notability. Thincat (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Found this source which says he was twice nominated for an Emmy (though Emmy's can be regional, needs verification). I could probably put together a case for notability using commercial databases which archive pre-Internet when he was more active and (potentially) had more coverage, but since a request for deletion was made I will support that and let it go. --
  GreenC 07:29, 22 January 2014 (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) 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azubuike Wokocha

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Azubuike Wokocha (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 clear how this meets notability guidelines. References provided are of unclear reliability and at least one if not more are self-published. Claims such as " 26 song hit compilation" and "smash single" without mention of charting position are more promotional than demonstrating notability. RadioFan (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RadioFan, Well, I've corrected the " 26 song hit compilation" and "smash single", as for the article, the sources are from media blogs reporting on music and entertainment most of which have been running for years now with professional writers. Please keep the article. Thank youAfrowildchild (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Number 8 on the

Criteria for musicians and ensembles says "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". The subject has won a music award in his state, which is shown in the article. Numbers 11 and 12 on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles says "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." The subject has released a compilation which was aired on radio stations in the country, he is also a radio personality and conducts radio shows on air. Also note that I've also introduced more reliable sources from the news websites announcing him as the producer of the year in 2009 in accordance with number 1 on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles which says "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries"--Afrowildchild (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Little or no coverage online. References in article largely
  talk 17:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep — Subject is West African and lives in Nigeria, has won an award in his country, has releases which was covered by radio and local news agencies who also publish online, has been mentioned on other articles indicating importance. Article has moderately sufficient reliable sources.— Adrian Esomchi (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) duffbeerforme (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is notable to some extent and contain enough references from entertainment news websites in the musicians'region. Al Gomez (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User is a confirmed sockpuppet of

talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete The article does not have have reliable sources. Most (if not all) of the sources are press releases. As a matter of fact, the subject himself is not notable. He's only known in his hometown and not across Nigeria. There's even a wordpress citation included in the article. versace1608 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject meets
  WP:NMUSIC.--Alice Shedrack (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of

talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply

]

• Keep while one or two sources are self published, subject has received significant independent coverage in newly added reliable sources ([14]) and ([15]) have been added to article. Just passes
  WP:GNG.Tinted iris (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of

talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply

]

• keep per tinted
  talk 17:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep Just gone through the references provided in the well-written article. Subject clearly demonstrates the notability standard in
  WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirdstrike11 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of

talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (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) 13:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Tinted Iris's claims are wrong. Spyghana is not a reliable source, it's just a standard promo bio. Rhythm937 is the radio station the subject works for so is clearly not independent. Wokocha lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contrary to the
  WP:NMUSIC.DJ Arafat (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Another new account (sock?) peddling misinformation. Spyghana: "Do you have a story or an article to publish?" [16] "providing a platform where readers and contributors may have an imprint on public policy, influence public opinion and ultimately, contribute towards bringing the change that we desire in our country, Ghana". A website that hapily republishes pr cruft. ogololaughs: [17] "Incorporated in Nigeria in 2007 as a full time Events Management outfit, constructions and supplies inclusive", clearly not a relable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The account is a confirmed sockpuppet of

talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment While concerns about unreferenced promotional sounding claims have been addressed, reliability of the sources in the article are still unclear. The claim that this artist has received a "major award" has not been substantiated, a state level award doesn't not seem to meet this. The flurry of sockpuppets certainly doesn't do anything to establish the notability of this artist either. RadioFan (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is unclear and references look unreliable. See also
  Nigerian scam. Admiral Caius (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2014 (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) 02:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slant.co

Slant.co (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-

• Comment http://gigaom.com/2013/07/21/five-companies-yahoo-should-buy-to-turbocharge-its-turnaround/

https://angel.co/slant they also have very notable investors you can see in that profile, with a lot more very notable investors visable if you have an AngelList account and you're also an investor. They are also mentioned here: http://www.brw.com.au/p/entrepreneurs/young_thriving_start_investor_bardia_GFu1KbKoJsfDGfkA8F4yGO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.54.103 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 January 2014

• Reply Having a lot of investors (
  even notable ones) doesn't count toward notability on Wikipedia. The first link you gave is a step in the right direction. The second one isn't, it's just a routine listing with a statement by Slant itself. The third one also isn't: it's about an investor, and lists some of his investments a couple of times, including Slant, but says nothing about them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. I did manage to find another reference at freewaregenius but that combined with the supplied gigaom.com reference does not establish sufficient notability. I cannot find anything else relevant on Google, Google News or Highbeam. Nikthestunned 11:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable web content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2014 (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.

DuranShow

DuranShow (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 radio show. Jeff Duran aka Jeff Joseph Dandurand aka Jeffrey Dandurand is not notable. Belligerence - The Journey of JJ Star, How Embarrassing, Defects of Character and Cursed Since Birth are not notable. His individual radio shows is not notable. Wikipedia is not here to promote Duran and it is not here to catalog the output of a non notable individual. Clips from the show and media releases are not independent sources. There is no coverage of this show in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme since you have been doing such a fine job making sure my name or anything that is associated with me doesn't appear (Now be a good little nerd and stop with the ignorant commentary where you make it known how "not notable" I or whatever associated with me is.) You can tear my pathetic career to shreds but alluding that I was behind any of this amateurish horse shit in various posts is borderline slanderous. I am surprised people don't look into why you make such an effort to police any mention of my likeness or associations. Good job taking me off, bad job keeping your personal vendettas out of your un-paid writing gig. Justify your existence explaining why all those shitty indie bands/people from Australia nobody knows have Wikipedia pages - instead of pouring salt on my name. There should be no need for LAWSUITS -- instead require that statements by douche bags like duffbeerforme be investigated, along with a LINK to their website/blog/page with whatever supporting documents they wish to provide. While I respect you for keeping me off of Wikipedia, the ignorant shit that follows needs to stop asap. Something is not notable-erase it or whatever, no need to take shots when I had no intention for some of my past failures to be read or known by anybody. Thanks for making it public and worse.--JeffDandurand (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you are saying you are Jeff Duran? First your claim I have repeatedly alluded that you were behind any of this amateurish horse shit. Where have I alluded that. I can't recall ever previously having suggested that JosephDann was Jeff Joseph Dandurand. I have been operating based on JosephDann's claim that he is not Duran. Second, the thanks for making any of this public. You'll have to direct those thanks to JosephDann, he in the one responsible for introducing your story to Wikipedia. Third, if you think I should be investigated the best place to go for that would probably be

WP:LEGAL. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2014 (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.  Sandstein  20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Taunt

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

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

A rather useless content fork of Taunting, and really adds nothing to the understanding of that topic ES&L 11:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nosense and no notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Useless is a pretty accurate word to describe this. Everything we need to know about taunting is already in Taunting.LM2000 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It is almost a direct copy of Taunting - not sure what the point is but clearly a recently created article covering an existing topic.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless content fork of Taunting. jni (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Previous comments have nailed it.Mdtemp (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2014 (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. Or, perhaps, stepover-armlock-camel-clutched into oblivion?  Sandstein  20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing moves in professional wrestling

Finishing moves in professional wrestling (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 effectively a "List of" except that only a couple of the moves actually have articles...and even those probably should not. As such, this is a non-notable list, and purely

• Delete - as per nom. There is no sourced definition of what constitutes a finishing move and few of the listed moves are sourced. Non Notable list. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete any move in wrestlinc can be a finisher. No notable--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This might be a good idea for an article in theory but I don't know if there is any way to create a realistic list, because as HHH Pedigree points out, any move can be a finisher. So we'll always end up with an immense and unmanageable list.LM2000 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Meh, not my cuppa tea. However, there are some sources and some notable moves. Can it be fixed in the normal course of editing? See
  WP:RS. My take: why not? Bearian (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not a fan of pro wrestling, but any move could be a finishing move. Any move that's a specialty of a particular wrestler should be in that wrestler's article. This may also fall under [{WP:OR]]. Mdtemp (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (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.

Bambakomallophobia

Bambakomallophobia (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 phobia - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contains massive

• OPPOSE!!: We just undeleted it! It is a legitimate and notable phenomenon, and I think should be kept. Give us some time to work on the article so that it is up to Wikipedia standards. It was literally, undeleted about a half an hour ago! This seems more like an axe-to-grind than a nomination for a legitimate article for deletion. Gstridsigne (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's something in progress, and fails to meet Wikipedia's most basic standards, it should be in either

sandbox - this "article" should not be articlespace whatsoever. It's dangerous to people right now because it's purporting to be a medical article ES&L 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: The one reference it contains doesn't mention the topic. This looks to fall somewhere between urban legend and hoax.—Kww(talk) 12:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It most certainly is NOT an urban legend or a hoax. It is a legitimate phenomenon, because I experience it. My sister experiences it too, and there might actually be a genetic-component to it. When I requested undeletion, I had no idea the stringent criteria for medical condition articles on wikipedia. It most certainly does ride the cusp of a psychological/neurological condition, but has not been researched and/or published in any medical journals that I could find. I have accepted that it should be deleted for this reason, but it is offensive to dismiss it as a hoax, urban legend, or illegitimate. All in all, know that it is a legitimate condition, but because of the lack of research, I support deletion, at this point. More research in the medical academia must be done to warrant an article, but DO NOT be so offensive to delete it as a hoax. So I choose to change my vote to delete. Gstridsigne (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources attesting to the existence of this phobia, at least under that name. ... discospinster _talk 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless serious references from
  reliable sources are produced. Anyone can get a Greek dictionary and make up phobias, and some of them get onto "Gosh, fancy that!" sites or "List of weird phobias" books, but we should not have an article unless there is solid, published evidence to show that this is a real condition which is taken seriously. That is particularly important for a medical subject. I have found a good deal of chat on Twitter and blogs and the like, but nothing reliable. Most significantly, there is no mention in Pubmed, and no mention in the NIH database. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I agree that we should not have articles on random "disorders" that do not exist in medical literature, especially when the articles make conjectural medical claims. Without reliable sources to establish that this actually exists and is notable, we should simply leave the original research to Wikia and blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2014 (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.