Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 21

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. Some of the delete comments point out that routine coverage doesn't typically contribute towards meeting the GNG, but later comments provide substantial independent coverage, so I have discounted these. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Johnson (boxer)

George Johnson (boxer) (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 non-notable boxer. Lost to some interesting people but

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've added some sourcing, his long career provided press coverage of his notable fights. It does appear he was inducted into the California Boxing Hall of Fame in 2005 though I'm looking for a better cite for that fact. I also see one book says he got an "Award of Merit" from the World Boxing Hall of Fame in 2002.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NOTINHERITED. Mdtemp (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:NBOX is irrelevant if someone meets WP:GNG. A fair amount of the coverage I have added (the article had NONE when sent to AfD) is about Johnson, thus I was able to flesh out some of his history. He's notable for his longtime durability and ability to match up with numerous top fighters, which is why he got a fair amount of coverage. He's cited fondly in books and all sorts of places. Compared to old baseball players articles which litter this project, and, nay, even current professional sportsmen of all stripes whose articles dally as mere stubs forever with one bare citation to some sporting records site, Johnson far outshines them in terms of notability. I wouldn't saythe California Boxing Hall of Fame entry by itself is sufficient, but dismissing it as meaningless is unwise.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has been improved to the point where my initial comment has less relevance. Still think it should go through the process (i.e.. not withdrawing it) but the sources go a long way to meeting WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As he faced so many noteworthy opponents (by my count, 13 fights against men who held, or fought for, the World Heavyweight Title, and ~5 others who held a top 10 ranking) thats enough to make his career, and hence him, notable imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittingonacornflake (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:NBOX. GNG is not met by routine sports coverage of his 50 fights--of course there would be coverage of them, especially if he's fighting notable opponents, but that doesn't mean there's significant independent coverage of him. It's clearly established that martial arts halls of fame do not signify notability (and boxing is a martial art) and notability is not gained by fighting notable fighters since notability is not inherited.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WTF does NBOX have to do with anything? I've never participated in a boxer AfD before, I must say, I wrote Jacob Hyer, and that's about it. Johnson was profiled in articles like this [11] because he was a notable fighter. These aren't just two sentence AP entries. How is Wikipedia improved by not including coverage of this important and well-remembered figure in mid 20th century boxing? Boxing is not *just* a martial art, it was one of the most popular sports in the United States for a long long period, its more recent decline a la baseball notwithstanding. I wouldn't have spent time improving this article if I seriously didn't think Johnson was notable and the article simply needed some TLC.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NBOX is a guideline and not meeting it does not mean an article should be deleted. Numerous well-known boxers, such as
  WP:NOTINHERITED here. Most notable boxers are so because of fights against other notable boxers. Johnson was a well known heavyweight journeyman of the 60s and 70s, had 54 pro bouts, about a third of which were against boxers from the sport's top echelon. Boxing scribes like Jim Amato have written articles about him.[12] He participated in televised bouts and received ample newspaper coverage. A google search for him turns up 266,000 matches [13]. A search of the google news archive gives 230 results. How much coverage do people require? This seems very stringent since Muhammad Ali's mom has survived two deletion discussions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittingonacornflake (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would have said fighters (of any type) become notable by winning (or at least fighting for) titles. There's a lot of fighters who fought a number of good fighters, but they were just there to pad the record of the better fighters. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems like a good fighter who fought the bestCrazyAces489 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hate to step into the middle of this (I feel like a ref between two free swinging brawlers), but this shouldn't be hard to settle. There are only 2 sets of criteria that would show he's notable--
  WP:NBOX. Since it's clear he doesn't meet NBOX, all that is necessary to keep the article is to show several articles that give significant independent coverage of him. Currently, I see lots of fight results in the article and upcoming event announcements but those are routine. Just my opinion, of course. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Passes
  WP:BASIC. Source examples include [14], [15] which both include detailed biographical information about the subject, [16] and [17]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)ld[reply]

Keep Johnson's fight with Frazier was notable in that it was Eddie Futch's 1st fight in Frazier's corner, and more importantly, according to Futch, despite a clear decision, Frazier "looked like the loser" after the fight's conclusion. The California Boxing Hall of Fame should carry some weight in this matter. LawrenceJayM (talk) 23:30, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Jaco

David Jaco (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: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-notable boxer. Lost to a couple of interesting people but notability not inherited. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by split decision.Keep with additional added sourcing. He got a nice ESPN article (underutilized in the article) and a Boxing.com book review, but that's not quite enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded from those 2 sources to now 8 sources. --

GreenC 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Jaco is notable not just for his career as a journeyman including bouts against a slew of extraordinarily notalbe fights (Tyson, Buster Douglas, Tommy Morrison, George Foreman etc.) but also for his personal struggles and family boxing legacy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep Additional sources added to show he meets

WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong keep The common sense reality is that Wikipedia is an information providing service. There are enough fights on his ledger which had wide audiences and substantial media coverage for it to be fair to conclude that users might well want to know something about his life and career. LawrenceJayM (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:NOTINHERITED. Of course there was interest in the fights of major fighters, but not because Jaco was fighting. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No, the Keep argument is that fighting in very notable fights adds to a person's notability which is confirmed by the very substantial coverage of the fighter and his fights in reliable independent sources. Can you explain why an entire article about this fighter by ESPN and his career doesn't constitute substantial coverage in a reliable independent source? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the ESPN article is good coverage. If someone provides others than I think a case can be made for him meeting

WP:GNG. I disagree that merely fighting notable fighters makes you notable--some recent boxer articles have been deleted even though they fought many notable fighters while racking up lots of losses. For right now, I'm withholding my vote. Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per GNG. I've expanded the article and sources. --
  GreenC 17:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no substantial coverage and fails
  WP:NBOX. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Per GNG there are multiple reliable sources have significant coverage. --

GreenC 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep If he passes the GNG he doesn't need to pass any SSG.
  WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear on this. He doesn't just get routine coverage for fights. They talk about his personal life and his book. Reliable sources in the article now prove he meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You're right, but the article had been lacking the sources necessary to show he meets GNG. I believe that has now been rectified. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe there are now enough good sources to show he passes GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 27 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.

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

)

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

Unnecessary content fork of

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 12:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  Cary Clarets as they both cover the same topic i.e. a notable sports team. Cary Clarets was the old name, Carolina RailHawks U-23's is the new. GiantSnowman 12:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per reasonble discussion above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per GiantSnowman. Article should be at
  Cary Clarets as a redirect. Nfitz (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as per GiantSnowman. Fenix down (talk) 14:40, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Light

Infinite Light (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 has zero sources; externally linked website of band is dead. Unresolved notability tag has been on article for last 4 years. Cursory search for RS finds nothing. BlueSalix (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Utterly non-notable and zero sources. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searched all the usual sources, but I cannot find any indication that this band meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at
  WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 08:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A zero page. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I usually vouch for pages of bands that have the slightest bit of notability in any scene, but these guys are completely unknown even by Internet underground standards. Literally less than a hundred listeners in last.fm and there's and average of two votes for their albums in RYM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.190.31.213 (talk) 05:44, 29 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 speedy delete. Speedy granted. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qarshi Industries

Qarshi Industries (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, apparently non-notable non-profit organization with a history of SPA contributors spamming on it. A quick Gsearch for "Qarshi Industries" turns up job applications, primary sources, and unreliable sources - not an ounce of anything that counts towards GNG in the first three pages. Searching for "Qarshi Laboratories" also generates a similar result. As a result, we have a company failing

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy - Does not assert notability. Tagged for
  talk) 19:55, 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.  Sandstein  20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirals of Danu

The Spirals of Danu (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 self-published ([18]) book series. Sources are Facebook pages, blogs and community reviews, nothing that would meet criteria #1 of

• Comment: I have removed a large bulk of the article, as much of it was sourced by merchant sources. Anyone interested in the original version, can see it here. One of the sources [19] looks to be a local paper, but when I search for the headline I get no actual hits.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not that I think that this was a fake article, mind you, just that this was probably a very, very local interest piece that never actually got big enough of a notice to get placed on the main website for the Dunfermline Press. As far as local pieces go, they're usable but depreciated greatly- especially if the paper itself doesn't post the article on their website. Although I do note that the WP article for
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. I've removed the lawsuit information from the article, as I can find nothing to substantiate either claim that Adil-Smith or the Accipiter Corporation were involved in any legal issues. I searched both the Washington Post and The Scotsman and found nothing. A search in Highbeam brought up nothing as well. Considering that we have zero proof that these lawsuits actually occurred, I've removed the section entirely because without any actual proof that they occurred (not even a public record on the computer at all) we run the risk of legal action from either of the other parties that were supposedly involved. We have no way of knowing if this was an actual lawsuit or if someone was just warned to "lay off" or the equivalent thereof- that's why it's so incredibly important to have reliable sources. If it wasn't an actual lawsuit, then we run the risk of the involved parties saying that we're posting false information. We can't report on things without some actual proof we can all see. If someone can find this proof, we can always re-add the information. I'm a little leery about the fact that nobody has really reported on the lawsuits in general, despite two major papers supposedly covering the events. This doesn't mean that the lawsuits didn't happen, but it does kind of hammer home that they weren't particularly noteworthy lawsuits. When it comes down to it, even if we do find proof to show that the news articles were written, three articles (including the local coverage) aren't enough to show notability in this instance. This is a solidly non-notable series. I wish the author well, but this just isn't ready for Wikipedia yet. It looks to be relatively popular for a self-published series, but popularity doesn't equate to notability.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no RS, seems promotional BlueSalix (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. So, somebody has got a book which is available on Kindle from Amazon... anyone can do that: I know people who have been willing to spend money to do that, and who are now waiting to get enough sales to recoup their expense. So, the book has good reviews on Facebook... the very fact that that is mentioned suggests a lack of reviews anywhere significant. So, someone's book has been the subject of a report in The Scotsman newspaper last month, under the title "Debut Author Grounds Airport"... only the Scotsman's website has no record of any such report. (Also, the title suggests that the report, if it exists, is principally about an incident at an airport, rather than about the book.) Likewise for the other attempts the author of the article has made to make the book seem significant. OK, how about searching for evidence myself? Well, the first page of Google hits consists of Facebook, Goodreads, Twitter, Amazon, and Wikipedia. The next page starts with a blog, and goes on from there. And so it goes on... the more I look at the case, the less it looks as though the book is at all notable.
  talk) 16:30, 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.

Aaron Lennox

Aaron Lennox (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)

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails

Conference league is not professional. Simione001 (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all

Maidenhead United is indeed semi-professional only. ([20], [21], [22]

). My mistake, as I was under impression that they (Conference and Maidenhead) are professional. Therefore agree with deletion. Also updated on Maidenhead's wiki page.

--SuperJew (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only senior appearances and olympic appearances are considered notable in regards to representing your nation at international level. Simione001 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:CSD#G7 in which case it should be speedy deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @SuperJew:, please can you confirm that you do indeed with the deletion? If so I will speedy it. GiantSnowman 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yes, I am with the deletion. --SuperJew (talk) 06:35, 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 merge to Magic: The Gathering. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Beleren

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

)

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

This does not establish

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are 3rd party sources there that seem to be reliable. I don't think we need an entire article on this character, but perhaps one on Planeswalkers or something? Don't know enough about MtG to really guess. I'm opposed to deletion, but don't have a merge target at hand.Hobit (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Contrary to the nomination statement, the article primarily consists of non-plot information, such as what cards he has appeared on, the gameplay abilities of those cards, and what sets those cards are in. There are only a couple sentences of plot details. TTN, I know you like to use basically the same nomination statement for many of your AFD nominations, but please at least edit it so that it is accurate for the article you are currently discussing. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Jace is a pretty major character in the game, so shouldn't he get at least some mention? There used to be an article on Planeswalkers, but that's been merged into Magic: The Gathering, but maybe someone with more knowledge on this subject should make a List of Planeswalkers page, then we could merge this into that. For now, though, I oppose deletion. Supernerd11 (talk) 19:32, 9 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the entire race that this character belongs to isn't considered well-supported enough to merit an article, it is difficult to see how the character belongs. Most of the article is about gameplay minutiae with, as the nominator mentions, is better off placed in Wikia than here. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the notability of a single character should be dependent on whether the group he belongs to is also notable just doesn't align with Wikipedia policy at all. Jace certainly could be covered in reliable sources without reliable sources also covering planeswalkers in general (I assume you are referring to planeswalkers when you say race, even though it wouldn't be called a "race" in terms of the plot). Calathan (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus of editors that a subtopic of an area isn't notable, then other editors can take notice of that when considering the notability of a sub-sub-topic. In any event, real-world notability established by independent sources is absent for this character. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a sub-sub-topic though. To make a comparison to things that are more widely known, that would be like saying Obi-Wan Kenobi is a sub-topic of Jedi, or like saying Albus Dumbledore is a subtopic of wizards in the Harry Potter series. One is a major character in the plot, and the other is the type of character he is. It is quite possible, even likely in many cases, that a major character in the plot of a fictional work would be more widely covered than the special type of being he is. I agree on the sources issue though. Calathan (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, then. I thought it was more like having an article about (to maintain the Star Wars analogies) Oola with no corresponding article about Twi'leks. Although, If it was more like the Jedi situation, I can't conceive having an article about any individual Jedi without also having an article about the Jedi as a concept. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Jace has been probably the most prominent character in the plot of Magic for the last several years, and one of his individual cards is one of the most significant cards printed in the last several years, but I'm not personally aware of any independent reliable sources that cover him (though I haven't made a significant effort to look). It looks like the sources in the article are either primary (published by Wizards of the Coast), or unreliable. Without reliable sources the article shouldn't be kept, but since he is a major character in the plot, I think a redirect might be good (perhaps just to Magic: The Gathering). Calathan (talk) 05:21, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a major fictional character within the MTG universe, but as those above me have pointed out, not one that has received much if any substantial independent coverage. Does not meet the
  WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 2 February 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) 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty

International Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article under misleading title. Reads like a press release, and is sourced to notices derived from press releases. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like this article was created and extensively edited by a user with a
  reliable as they are mainly press releases. - tucoxn\^talk 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have moved this article to International Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty and made the page Nyéléni about the Malian legend. Apologies if this disrupts the deletion discussion in any way. I have no objection to being reverted if necessary for the sake of this discussion as long as the appropriate (ie. current) titles are restored after its over. Thanks for any assistance necessary and I am sorry for any trouble I've caused. Just trying to fix what's broken and make it right. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. I support Candleabracadabra's action; it seems quite sensible. bobrayner (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While a notable cause, the article is merely
  starting over or userfication. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Link span may be something slightly different! :-) bobrayner (talk) 09:15, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Bollinger

Cody Bollinger (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)

Deleted by AfD debate but reposted. Speedy declined because MMA fighter had fought more top tier fights. Not the case - remains at only one - only change is a signing to a second tier organization. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails
  WP:NMMA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete PR-cruft that fails GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSalix (talk • contribs) 11:46, 21 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still has only one top tier fight, which isn't enough to meet
  WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:47, 27 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 Merge into Snow Crash and redirect there. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smartwheels

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 technology from an otherwise notable novel. No sources cited. One external link talking about a similar technology that doesn't mention the book at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The consensus seems clear (there was a previous AfD discussion) that the parent subject is notable and that this aspect deserves note, but not as its own article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not receive significant coverage by reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as this is a likely name for a redirect. Diego (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect to Snow Crash. No coverage in books or scholarly journals that I could find, and while I didn't spend a lot of time wading through a general web search, I only saw passing references in reliable sources (e.g. NY Times book review), and brief mentions in very marginally reliable sources (e.g. image-heavy website “magazines” that thrive on "top X whatever" articles as click-bait). ––Agyle (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Snow Crash, it's been awhile since I read Snow Crash, but from memory these are not a major plot point, just a nifty piece of scene-setting futuretech. I'm not sure there's anything worth merging, to be honest. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:19, 2 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlogUpp

BlogUpp (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 sources are not sufficient for notability & the article is promotional DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Offline 04:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails notability per
  WP:PRODUCT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Author comment: I added the article originally. There are currently provided a number of mentioning sources including CNET, TheNextWeb and a published book. If one does a Google search for "BlogUpp" it will result in a couple of millions of results. That is notable as per my understanding. There have been noticed lately a number of initiatives and changes at Wikipedia to encourage new contributions. Deletions of this nature don't seem to go in line with that strategy. Sorry to know that and hope the deletion to be reconsidered.Ibjennyjenny (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This page was reviewed and accepted by
  Articles for creation process last April. I hope she is able to participate in this discussion. Note: Going through a formal review process like AFC in no way exempts pages from being nominated for deletion or being deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The listed book and one other book I found merely mentioned BlogUpp. Nowhere near
  Snow keep." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Commment: At least one editor with an apparent conflict of interest has edited the article recently. I have undone two of those edits for being at least borderline-promotional and kept one that was merely updating existing information without coming across as promotional. I have added {{connected contributor}} to the article's talk page and put a COI-related note on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A warning sign that a web site is not notable include content that is mostly the utmost routine trivialities for any such site: what servers it is housed on the signup & authentication procedures and different levels of service, that it uses RSS, that it links with the major social web services, that it has multiple special interest blogs and a directory, and so on. These or some of these can be appropriate content as a small part of an article, but if that's all there is to say... DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While it's true that there are a lot of hits on Google, the numbers are inflated by several things: (1) Google thinks you don't know how to spell "up" and included "blog up" results (2) BlogUpp seems to have its name all over every site that has used its service as well as (3) it's free, so numerous download sites have it on their list. Also, the majority of the mentions of BlogUpp are on blog posts (not surprisingly). On the other hand, because there are so many of these blog mentions, it's hard to sort out any legitimate coverage. However, there is "Blogging by Million, Earn by Millions: How the Young Savvies Earn Millions, "Is adv.blogupp.com a fake site ?", "Automate your blog promotion with BlogUpp", "Blogging tips", "101 FREE Ways To Promote Your Blog", "[23]", "BlogUpp.com – Get Free Adverts for Your Blog" —Anne Delong (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Insider Note: Dear Wikipedians,
  

It's great to know Wikipedia has such dedicated contributors.

Turns out I'm the one davidwr refers herein as COI editor. Besides backing a blog supporting company, I'm a curator myself of our blogger community and the blog network. Hence understand the efforts you are making to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia. Bravo to you all, really.

In retrospect, I'm grateful in the first place to Ibjennyjenny for submitting the initial article. Being aware of it, contributed myself when there was a logo change and internal company updates. As a trustworthy go to destination of verified information, thought Wikipedia should be the place I should mention those updates firsthand.

Apologies if that doesn't meet the norms here. According to them, I'm also not in a position to bring more arguments on current subject. Hence if considered necessary by Wikipedia veterans, I'll conform to the consequences of the nomination and thank you all for your time.

Respectfully,

talk) 20:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello,

Valer Batcu, and thanks for declaring your COI. Updating a company logo seems like a legitimate action for someone from a company, since it involves no opinion, but "insider" information is not appropriate in any article, since articles are supposed to be a summary of published information about a topic. However, each article has a talk page, and if you find a source you think may be useful, or find inaccurate information in the article, you can discuss it there and if neutral editors agree they may make the changes. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Article fails the criteria at
  Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• BlogUpp seems like an interesting and worthwhile enterprise. Wikipedia articles are governed by community agreed upon criteria. They are generally deleted or kept based on whether substantial coverage in reliable independent sources exists. While this subject has been mentioned it does not appear to have received substantial coverage in newspapers, magazines, books or from other reliable independent sources. So I recommend Delete at this point in time. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It does not appear that BlogUpp meets the standards of
  WP:CORP. The closest thing to a meaningful writeup is the one in CNET, but that is from 2008. The CNET item gives a better explanation of what BlogUpp actually does than the current Wikipedia article. As DGG observes, the inclusion of trivial details about the service actually makes the article less plausible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 29 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 merge to Submucosa. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small intestinal submucosa

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

)

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

This article is promotional in nature, existing to promote SIS as a graft, and almost exclusively relies on primary sources. An article on the submucosa, titled

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge into Submucosa. Article has significant issues but there is enough notability to preclude deletion. Merging it should solve most of the problems. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The “Small Intestinal Submucosa” page was created to highlight the use of small intestinal submucosa (SIS) as a biomaterial in the manufacturing of medical devices, and is meant to be separate from the anatomical discussion of the submucosa72.12.219.155 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Best covered in a combined article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems right. I removed some unsourced claims. 23:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuda Wijeyeratne

Cuda Wijeyeratne (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 indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails GNG and BIO. On a side note you might try using PROD before referring to AfD unless that's already been done. If worded strongly and citing the correct chapter and verses, I find PROD is effective about 70% of the time in getting rid of these kinds of promotional articles. I try to save AfD for the situations where the author wants to contest the deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While "no indication of significance"" is an inappropriate application of CSD criteria, and in any event inapt because the article does make claims of significance, the article subject fails
  WP:NOTINHERITED applies. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:16, 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. With a gentle reminder to the nominator to play the ball, not the editor. Whether you feel an editor has usefully contributed to the project is irrelevant to the question of whether a specific article should be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InfoStreet

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

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

This article was created by User:Hutchisojl. She has an impressive userpage, but overall, I do not feel that she has improved Wikipedia through her contributions. She has created only three articles: blatantly promotional articles about Kashoo,[24] InfoStreet, and SkyDesktop.

There are two reasons to delete this "InfoStreet" article. Even one reason would be enough, but I shall list both.

Argument A: The text fails

G11

.

Argument B: The subject fails our inclusion criteria. So it should be deleted per

WP:42

.

The SD Times ref fails

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC); edited 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its voluminous sources notwithstanding, this article fails to demonstrate
  WP:N. Sources are either primary or trivial in their coverage. Side note: I think we should take a deep breath before impugning the motives of new editors. I appreciate your strong advocacy in laying out the case against the article and mostly agree with your points, as evidenced by my "delete." But I am not so sure about your dismissal of trade publications. The simple truth is that many techy things are only covered by trade specific publications. If we preclude them entirely as WP:RS we will be setting up barriers to articles about legitimate topics. I would agree though that trade pubs need to be treated with some caution. Not all are equal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. I thank you for your words. About your last point: See our corporate inclusion guideline.
    SIGCOV and/or INDY, but in addition, I think that they also point to "media of limited interest and circulation". Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete The company seems like it ought to be notable - it was one of the very earliest internet-focused companies - but the coverage just isn't there. I'm not impressed by the references in the article, and I found nothing to add to them in a search. BTW Unforgettable, I agree with Ad Orientem: you should focus your arguments on the article itself and the notability of the article's subject - not on the author of the article. IMO it's also inappropriate to instruct people how you think they should !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MelanieN. Excellent point about instructing people how to !vote; I hadn't thought of that. I have now edited the relevant part of my nomination. Is it good now? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You removed the instruction to !vote delete, but you are still telling people what they have to do in order to respond to your satisfaction. (If you vote "keep", please refute both of my arguments. If you want to refute only one argument, please comment instead of voting.) IMO you should trust Wikipedians to know how to comment at an AfD. And whaddaya know - it turns out that we all agreed with you anyhow! --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 29 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe War

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

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

This does not establish

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  significant coverage outside of book reviews and fan pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No real-world notability Shii (tock) 14:10, 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.

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PernixData

PernixData (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 couple of months ago, I nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PernixData. MelanieN and Keithbob put in impressive work and removed all vanispamcruftisement from the article, and I thank them both. Half a week later, after reading MelanieN's arguments, I agreed with her that PernixData was notable after all. The article was kept.

Just a week later, the article creator returned and started adding vanispamcruftisement back in again. We could keep the article and play the game of gradually semi-protecting the article for longer and longer lengths of time. But, on second thought, I respectfully disagree with MelanieN. PernixData is

Let me explain why PernixData is NN.

True, the Forbes ref is fine.

But the refs in TechCrunch, InfoWorld, Gigaom, Computerworld, eWeek, CRN Magazine, Virtualization Review, Modern Infrastructure, and Willemterharmsel.nl are not enough to meet WP:CORP. User:Ihcoyc said it best:

The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.

Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the

Business Week

type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business.

MelanieN, Keithbob, I convinced you to de-spam the article; in doing so, I wasted your time. This was foolish of me, and a mistake. I apologize. :(

Still, I feel it is time for us to delete our PernixData article once and for all.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My first reaction was that a content dispute is not a valid reason for deletion (protection, etc. are the proper solutions), but this article fails the
  WP:GNG even though the press coverage may be nothing more than strong PR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article needs clean-up, not deletion. I've seen this argument before, and I reject it. Trade publications are a perfectly acceptable source. The
  fix it yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Use of the strange neologism "vanispamcruftisement" is not at all persuasive to me. I reject the argument that all coverage in "trade publications" is worthless for establishing notability as many trade publications such as Aviation Week & Space Technology have very high editorial standards. The notion that InfoWorld and Computerworld are not reliable sources seems implausible to me. And if "Blacksmithing Today" and "Modern Blacksmithing" and three other reputable blacksmithing publications report that a certain person is the leading blacksmith of the early 21st century, then that person is a notable blacksmith. Coverage in Forbes just seals the deal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I bow to no one in my frustration with the pervasive corporate spam and self promotional articles on Wikipedia, but this one clearly passes
  WP:RS. The argument advanced is not consistent with existing RS guidelines and should not be employed on AfD. Further, I respectfully believe AfD is not an appropriate forum for resolving interpersonal disagreements with other editors. If you believe someone is routinely engaging in inappropriate editing, then caution them. If that fails refer the matter to Admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Passes
  WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [25], [26], [27], [28]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete Nominator raises salient and interesting points, however, most notable is that we will have to continue protecting this article to prevent its continued editing by PR reps who will always have more time (since they're paid to do it) than the volunteers at WP will have to revert edits. With deference to the points raised by Ad Orientem, while that is not considered grounds for deletion in our GNG, I am making a common sense/Ignore All Rules decision to override those in expressing my opinion for delete. This article does not contain essential knowledge or information. More harm is done keeping these kind of non-essential articles that are destined to become promotional pieces than in just shutting them down completely (at least until they reach the point of notability where sufficient volunteer eyes are on the article to avoid its PR manipulation). BlueSalix (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]