Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 30

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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kumar Verma

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

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

delete-the person is not notable, citation given do not authenticate this person to be considered for publication on wikipedia

delete-citation #6 directs to his personal page; http://sunil.verma.org.in/ , author just copied the same content from this website, not a credible reference

Delete- most of information given is so general,almost all the university professors/Scientist of North America and developed countries across the globe have way better bio-data, however, only a few are on Wikipedia, I can't comprehend the reason of this article to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Relisting comment: This nomination was malformed and was not properly listed

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. h-index of 8 nowhere enough for a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• KEEP. *DO NOT Delete. My reasons are as follows:

1. How Many People are Research Ambassador of DAAD? Only 9 in Entire India. See this link: http://www.daaddelhi.org/en/23633/index.html. Dr Verma is one of them.

2. In the 40 yrs of the History of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology only 4 people (from this institute) got the prestigious CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research technology Award. I name all of them: Dr Lalji Singh, now Vice Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University, Jayaraman Gowrishankar, now the Director of Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Dr LS Shashidhara and the 4rth one is Dr Sunil Kumar Verma.

3. The Universal primer Technology that Dr Verma discovered in 2001 (Please see the filing date of US patent 7141364) is being used in entire world with the name DNA barcoding. It was his bad luck that the entire credit for this discovery is given to Paul D. N. Hebert who published this technology with a new name DNA barcoding in the year 2003 (two years later than the work of Dr Verma). Facts are facts and the links given here are clear proof of this. No offense! If any respected reader of wiki has knowledge and understanding of molecular biology, please go through the original work of Dr Verma and the first ever paper of Paul D. N. Hebert. Dr Verma named the this technology as 'Universal primer Technology' however, Dr Paul D. N. Hebert renamed it as 'DNA barcoding'. The term 'Molecular Signature' given by Dr Verma in 2001 for the species-specific signatures of DNA generated by mitochondrial Universal Primers (US patent 7141364) was just renamed as DNA barcode by this Canadian group in 2003. Can anyone let the world know the difference between these two works? In fact, there is no difference and the fact is that it was indeed pioneered by none other than Dr Verma. No need to emphasize that the discovery of 'Universal primer Technology of Dr Verma (later renamed as DNA barcoding' by others) was a discovery not less than the original discovery of DNA Fingerprinting by Sir Alec Jeffreys. With this fact, Dr Verma indeed should be recognized as the father of so called 'DNA barcoding' and this fact should be mentioned on his wikipedia page as well as on DNA barcoding page on wiki.

4. I strongly believe that the respected editors of wikipedia should not only keep the page of Dr Verma but also unbiasedly highlight the above facts on his wiki page so that entire world could know 'who indeed discovered the DNA barcoding' two yrs before the scientist who is popularly known to be the father of this technology. Wiki is not for east or west, it is just for the facts!! Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the
  WP:PROF criteria. Citation counts are too low for #C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reply to above Comment: approx 140 citations for the work (Please see total citations for first three papers on this link of Google Scholars . His work was suppressed due to ignorance about the facts highlighted above. Once the world know the facts through this wiki discussion/wiki pages, there will be thousands of citations of Dr Verma's original work. This is not the first case where the scientific discoveries have been suppressed knowing or Unknowingly. Lets be scientific and please read the documented proofs before making a comment.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete how about the other 8 people of DAAD, none of them is on wikipedia, others even have better bio-data.

Most of the professors and research staff of hundreds of Universities across world full-fill the above criteria, only a few are on Wikipedia. The awards given above in support of this person are not itself so big and renowned to be considered for Wikipedia The article substantially lacks citation which are supporting the information given for this person, for example citation no. 6 directs to his personal page; http://sunil.verma.org.in/ , author just copied the same content from this website, not a credible reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your "delete". You are the deletion nominator and you are not permitted to !vote twice. SpinningSpark 08:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very little published work,just 15 papers, here is the link http://www.ccmb.res.in/publications.php?grpid=34, the papers are not even published in high impact factor journals i.e.>5.00. Person can't be considered living legend to be published on wikipedia with such a CV. .The work he is doing is just his job, type of employment, nothing extraordinary. In India, Principal scientist have same pay scale as associate professor

. Regarding principal scientist, it is just a position in research institute and not somebody full in-charge of that research facility. Other senior positions in his institute are several Sr. Principal Scientists,Outstanding Scientists, Chief scientists, Director etc. .Person is not even a group leader in his institute http://www.ccmb.res.in/research_groups.php , he is just a junior scale researcher and a project leader (see other 30 project leaders in his institute). This all is against

Reply to Inder Neal's Comments:

1. Citation No 6 is very well directing to the official website of DAAD AND NOT the personal website of S K Verma.

2. The awards that Dr S K Verma has been conferred are the National Awards of India given by highest Scientific Bodies such as National Research Development Corporation (NRDC), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) etc.

3. Someone notable not being on wiki can not be a criteria for deleting article for others.

4. Simply STATING "S K Verma CAN NOT GET THE credit of Dr Paul Herbert' work. His name is no where in DNA barcoding" is not a reasonable and healthy argument by Inder Neal (even the spelling of Dr Hebert's name is not correct!)! I have given the clear links to the published documents, patents on USPTO sites, reference to their priority dates etc, which confirm that the technology of DNA Barcoding for species identification using conserved mitochondrial primers was originally discovered by S. K. Verma and Lalji Singh in 2001 with the name 'Universal Primer Technology', two years before than Paul Hebert. I have contacted Dr S K Verma and informed him about this discussion on wiki. Very soon I shall get from him important technical, scientific and popular documents/links to those documents that will further demonstrate that the 'Universal Primer Technology' discovered by him is the one that is indeed renamed as 'DNA Barcoding' by other groups. Please wait...

5. Dr Verma has published only 15 papers, this is true, but some of these papers are extremely novel paper. In one of his research (see link here), Dr Verma and team rediscovered the

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete The above walls of text defending the notability of this person actually constitute quite an articulate case for the opposite. --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it is an 'opposite' case????? Please read the links to the facts first before commenting. Why the scientific community can not correct itself if something has gone wrong??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For example when you mention that his works have been cited 140 times. You may think that supports keeping the article, but, in fact, it is very far from meeting
  original research to show here that this is the case. Sad as it is, if science hasn't corrected itself, we cannot do so either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Can I upload on wiki an original document (original DNA testing report from a US based company) which employed the technology of Verma (as cited in the report itself under the methodology section) and which later became a major breakthrough in entire USA to fight food frauds (See links here - Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4 and many other links that are available on google search.

If permitted, I can upload this document on wikipedia and it will prove beyond doubt that technology that was used to un-cover the famous US fish fraud (popularly known as Florida Fish Scandal) was of Verma (as cited in the original report itself), but the credit for this was later given to Hebert's barcoding technology! I have got this original DNA testing report from Dr Verma, who in-turn obtained it from the link available on the article written by one of the famous and most prestigious press reporters from USA. Alternatively, I can upload it on google docs/or wikileaks so that you could download it and see. Please let me know.

I appreciate though that you in principle agree that the science could have gone wrong in this case, and there is a scope for correction and that if I provide you with such authentic links, these can be reported in Wiki!

• I'm afraid that won't work, because such a document would be a
  reliable source that clearly states this and then and only then can you use that on WP. --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 6 April 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical-Reformed Church of the Canton Basel-Stadt

Evangelical-Reformed Church of the Canton Basel-Stadt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence or claim of notability, the article relies on primary sources I could not find independent, relibale sources on the subject. Fails

• Comment: Editors interested in this discussion may be interested in the article Evangelical-Reformed Church of the Canton of Lucerne, created on 30 March 2014. I have no opinion on deletion. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - State church of Basle is claim of notability. To find the GNG sources you will have to go to German language sources, probably, but if it has existed for 400 years the information will be out there somewhere. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  

Comment if its out there, I can't find it. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Does appear to be pretty notable as a state church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Wouldn't the "state church" be the
    Swiss Reformed Church? The article says this is a "member of the Schweizener Evangelische Kirchenbund" (Swiss Evangelical Church-group), but I don't know if these are the same thing. Again according to this article, it is the "Reformed denomination in the city of Basel", which sounds like it may be a regional section of a "state church". Cnilep (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • (Don't know why I didn't think to check this earlier...) The interwiki link from Swiss Reformed Church is
      Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches. That article includes Basel-Stadt in a long (26 items) list of members. Cnilep (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep but consider moving. I rather doubt that this church, as it exists today, is notable enough for a standalone article. However, historically, it (or rather its predecessor before the canton of Basle and its church were each split in two in 1833) was one of the more important early Reformed Protestant churches - not as influential as those of Zurich or Geneva, but not far short either. I can find at least one entire book (Burnett, Amy Nelson (2006). Teaching the Reformation : Ministers and Their Message in Basel, 1529-1629. Oxford University Press.
  ISBN 9780198041658.) on the church's first century, and I suspect that there is more on nearly the same scale to be found. We might well do better with an article on the predecessor church, talking about the current one in a shortish "Later history" or "Legacy" section - but even so, we would probably want that article to include almost all the information currently in this article, even though restructured and greatly expanded with information about the church's most important period. PWilkinson (talk) 12:23, 5 April 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fernandez

Jason Fernandez (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)

• Comment - I finished the nom (nom nom!). ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most sources are local food reviews. Only one article seems to mention him in depth. This person has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", per
  WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. We are not anti-business, we are just not Yellow Pages or Who's'Who. The article seems well-referenced, primarily to a number of articles in
  WP:ANYBIO, and I don't think he cuts it. Three or so articles in a single regional newspaper seem still to close to a vanity coverage than anything else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the nominator gets it exactly wrong. Two of the three restaurants are in fact notable enough to have their own articles (Bernini and Carne), but I chose to combine the restaurants into one article about the resterateur who runs them. This is in fact a trend in the restaurant industry, many leading chefs are establishing a group of individual restaurants rather than a chain of similar restaurants. And far from being "some restaurants" these are very significant locations in historic buildings at the center of Ybor City and Tampa revival. One is in a National Landmark and was just restored in the last few years. And another has been at the heart of the culinary resurgence in Ybor and a trendsetter and remains one of the most established and noted resaurants in the area. They have been covered very substantially. And, as noted above, there are in fact articles entirely about the restaureteur and his management of these establishments. So it makes the most sense to have an article covering these subjects in a sensible way although breaking it up into multiple articles is certainly a possiblity going forward. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there was more info and references showing more than just local notability at best, then...maybe. I would say delete for now. The buildings that they are in having their own notability is irrelevant. The restaurants can't inherit notability just because they lease space there. The Bernini and Green Iguana restaurants have been around awhile and possibly could be fleshed out more on their own (I don't know if they warrant their own articles or not), but Carne is not really that notable, I don't think, as you claim above. It hasn't even been open two years yet. I just don't see anything more for Jason Fernandez to warrant having his own article. Thank you. -- Shrikesong (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire article about him, articles discussing him and his restaurants (noting for example "It's official. Jason Fernandez has an empire. Bernini, Green Iguana and Hot Willy's in Ybor City were joined April 10 by Carne", and extensive coverage of the restaurants that are part of his restaurant group. The Tampa Bay Times is a major REGIONAL paper. It is not a local paper. This article covers him AND his restaurants including the one you acknowledge is in fact notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:24, 27 March 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, SpinningSpark 22:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. Sorry Bali88 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 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. Being an autobiography is not a valid reason for deleiton. No arguements have been brought suggesting he does not pass WP:PROF. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antal Jákli

Antal Jákli (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)

Autobiography; may fail notability Eyesnore (pc) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Autobiography, and no indication of notability ChromaNebula (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With a GS
  WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Comment -- Full professors are often notable, and I suspect this guy is notable. Someone tagged this article as possibly having been edited by somoene with a conflict of interest. This is not grounds for deletion. There are rules for how and when principles can edit their own articles. If this really happened here, but he is nevertheless notable, there are ways to remediate that. The first step would have been to explain the COI rules to the person suspect of being in a conflict of interest. I don't see any sign this happened here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norms. Reads like a resume without indication of notability.Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion of his performance in

WP:Prof#C1? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply

]

• Weak keep per
  WP:PROF#C1. The citation counts are high enough to convince me that he's a noteworthy physicist. The sourcing of the article is poor, but it mostly covers the basic facts of his education and career, for which primary sources are adequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 30 March 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, SpinningSpark 22:38, 30 March 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. Tawker (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Billing

Natalie Billing (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)

Strange article about an installation artist, largely cited to adverts for her events. I can't find any news coverage about her or her events whatsoever. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems to suffer a lot of link-rot and very poor sourcing, but a Google search found: spinningdaily ima.org arthivesupdate (blog) They are not great sources but they are independent. The sources I found may not meet
  WP:RS though. Beakermeep^(talk) 03:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, I came up with the same as User:Beakermeep; some independent sourcing that would confirm this person exists and does exhibitions, but nothing reliable or substantial enough to build a proper biography out of. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• 'Delete I also came up with the same as above, and found one book written about her, and another related to an exhibition. However, nothing that makes me cheer that she passes
  SarahStierch (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Please keep in mind that dead links can often be recovered. Links to archived copies of the dead links I was able to find in the article include [3], [4], [5] and [6]. I am not expressing an opinion on notability. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:20, 7 April 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.

List of people with initials J. G.

List of people with initials J. G. (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 isn't (IMO) an encyclopedic subject or a useful list. This is the only "List of people with initials ..." page in enwp. If anyone is commonly known by the initials "JG" then they can be added to the dab page (e.g. like there are several entries for people at JFK (disambiguation)). DexDor (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on condition that Jerzy (talk · contribs) also completes the handful of remaining articles: List of people with initials A. A.,<unhelpful repetition redacted>, List of people with initials Z. Y., and finally last but not least List of people with initials Z. Z.. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that Jerzy included a PROD tag ("Such a list is of no encyclopedic use...") when s/he created the page? DexDor (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be grounds for a G7 speedy delete if it wasn't three years ago. SpinningSpark 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete, although Barney the barney barney's suggestion is a fine compromise. :) 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but if Barney's suggestion is accepted, don't forget
  List of people with longer initials (possibly with all the permutations?). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I can't see what possible use this is to the project, though it could be turned into a disambiguation page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a random list, per WP:LIST. I don't see the point of the list. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lolwut? This exists? Although I suppose it's probably as random as list of songs about bicycles, so there's that. I just can't see anyone really using this list. Bali88 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems a bit arbitrary. — Cirt (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A totally arbitrary list. If we keep this, we will need the other 100+ possible initial combinations too. This is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 1 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fork PHP

Fork PHP (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)

Author objected to PROD. Fails

Delete per ProtossPylon's reasoning. Also the 'official' website is not even functional. None of the links work and there is no download link, just social media links. I am not sure there is a framework. This may just be spam. I think this meets

WP:CSD even. Beakermeep^(talk) 20:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 30 March 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. Tawker (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zina Saunders

Zina Saunders (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)

Tagged (by me) for notability questions since July 2013. The subject is clearly an active writer for a number of major periodicals and most of this article is about this work, cited to the periodical articles themselves. I've searched for significant independent coverage about Saunders but can find very little - a short article and very long quote in a Queens NY magazine, and a listing article in a Connecticut publication. Not sure this is sufficient to convince me she passes

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subject matter seems notable enough. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had looked at her article at the launch of WikiProject Women Artists and decided it was a keeper, just needing some improvement source wise. I consider her work with major publishers to be the equivalent of a major exhibition at a museum. She's also designed numerous cards for
  SarahStierch (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the references noted by SarahStierch evidence notability under
  WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:14, 7 April 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Valley Bancorp

North Valley Bancorp (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)

nonnotable financial company. in NASDAQ not NYSE. On of a group created by class, recreated after move to user space, despite advice that it was not likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to establish notability through
  WP:ORG. Cindy(talk) 10:56, 15 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 21 March 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Some possible sources not currently used in the WP article: zacks.com benzinga.com found via Marketwatch. I dont know if these change the outcome or not. I am not sure they are good sources. I figured it could not hurt to add them here though. Also isnt the Reuters profile a good source? Reuters (currently used in the article). If none of these sources are reliable enough I think the rest of the coverage is incidental and thus probably fails
  WP:ORG Beakermeep^(talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - enough RS cites to be
  WP:LISTED. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, agree with analysis by VMS Mosaic, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:56, 1 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KRDR Co Op Jr College

KRDR Co Op Jr College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no evidence of existence or notability provided after a while tagged Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Certainly appears to exist and is clearly at least a secondary school, which are kept by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 12 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 21 March 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mainstream educational institutions at least at the level of high school are generally considered notable enough for inclusion. This passes that basic criteria. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent noted by Necrothesp and Dennis Brown. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:23, 7 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bengi Semerci

Bengi Semerci (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)

More sources are needed as well as this person might be important, but does he need a page on here? Wgolf (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tiny citations. Too early, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete We don't have articles for every professor with a website. Not exactly someone who warrants a page. Wgolf (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Meets neither
  WP:ACADEMIC, nothing much in Turkish either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 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. Tawker (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Arm Reactor

Spider Arm Reactor (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)

Lacks notability and references markmassie (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only source is a blog. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 30 March 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. needs cleanup, but appears notable. AfD is not cleanup... Tawker (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Géant Casino

Géant Casino (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)

Subject might be notable, however no sources are cited and I had a lot of trouble finding anything that would pass RS in a Google search. The article has been tagged for no references for two years. Despite numerous edits no one seems interested in adding sources. The wording and overall tone of the article seems highly

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The continued lack of references is a problem and is clearly a task for someone to undertake, but this is one of the major supermarket retails chains of France. A Google search might not be much good unless done on google.fr. The company's own website is a good starting point. The most recent references I can find are to a a strike by 50 staff at the Béziers branch last month and France Info reporting this month that the group is the second cheapest chain in France. Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, agree with analysis done by Emeraude (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:57, 1 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deadest Rapper Alive

Deadest Rapper Alive (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 on almost unknown book--WorldCat shows only one library in the US that holds it. The author is equally non-notable-- Worldcat shows only other book, also in one library only. [12]

Almost all the reviews are from blogs, except for one blog-style column in a local magazine, cited here to make it look like two different titles. (there were some dead links I could not see, but they did not sound promising) DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think a weak case could be made for this self-published book. It attracted attention from regional sources (Philadelphia magazine and the Philadelphia Inquirer), but I'm really not seeing much beyond that. Those sources indicate that it caused a controversy online, but the controversy seems limited in scope to bloggers and local fans. The article itself doesn't make much effort to show non-local coverage, and the blogger reviews are a bit damning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 31 March 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. Tawker (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fever therapy

Fever therapy (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)

Created by the author

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Just in case this has been missed on the talk page, the author posted this: Thanks for the heads up. I am about to launch my self published book FEVER THERAPY with a world wide professional PR campaign that will include many invitations to review. As you may be aware self publishing represents over 70% of the overall publishing market and about 99% of new publications. I have several very favourable reviews (one from a professor of History). I apologise for not reading your submission criteria - I was preoccupied with IT issues as an amateur publicist. I am by no means an amateur writer however. I hope you will have an opportunity to read my stuff sometime and you will see the highest quality. As a writer I am here to stay. I will be careful to read all your objective criteria and do whatever is necessary to meet them.I am a strong advocate of Wikipedia. I look for your articles first by default. Of the hundreds I have accessed over the years I have only ever seen one that was of poor and subjective quality. When I have published my next three novels, which I hope to do in the next couple of months I will turn my attention to rectifying it. Best wishes, Jim.90.216.163.181 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Another self-published book with no reviews listed and no coverage in reliable sources. I guess you can say that it's not a promotional article, at least. Author probably didn't realize that we have
  inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Non-notable self published book lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet notability. Bali88 (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Presently, the book appears not to conform to
  redirect to Pyrotherapy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 2 April 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MICE industry in Thailand

MICE industry in Thailand (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)

Problem 1:

This article cites a wide variety of sources, but most of them support side points. It appears that only one source is about the MICE industry in Thailand itself. Unfortunately, one source is not enough.

Anyway, I don't think Global Traveler is an acceptable source for proving the notability of a subject. Please use mainstream sources. Condé Nast Traveler would probably qualify.

Please delete per

Problem 2:

The previous set of articles about the MICE industry in Thailand was created by convicted sockpuppeteer User:Mr RD, who appears to me to be a paid spammer. That set of articles was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khon Kaen MICE Tourism.

I cannot view deleted pages, but User:Amatulic told me this new article is better-sourced and non-promotional.

I respectfully argue that even this new article is promotional. It appears to me that the article's goal is to promote Thailand as a destination for meetings, conferences, and exhibitions. If you want me to enumerate specific problem points, please email me privately.

Please delete per

And now, a note for the Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau.

Dear TCEB:

Hiring Wikipedians to secretly edit for you is a cheap and sleazy thing to do. See also the two short cautionary tales at User:Durova/The dark side. I know that you really would like there to be a Wikipedia article about the MICE industry in Thailand. But not everything you want is possible. Perhaps your time and money would be better spent on other things than Wikipedia.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything worth merging to Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau and delete the title. It's a significant government agency but there's no need to also have an article about their activities. The vast majority of the content relates to the activities of the TCEB and some of it simply repeats information already in that article anyway. We also have Tourism in Thailand into which some of the content might go if giving an account of 0.58% of Thailand's GDP is a worthwhile exercise. Stalwart111 02:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. The only thing wrong with this article now is too many numbers. It's a neutral treatment of a notable topic. Unforgettableid, you have a bee in your bonnet. andy (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC) - changed to Delete - see below andy (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I don't think that's the only thing wrong with the article. We're talking about a small part of a broader industry that simply doesn't warrant coverage in its own right, especially given it is actually covered elsewhere. We don't, for example, have a specific article covering the Resort industry in Thailand. We do, bizarrely, have Spa in Thailand which I think I will promptly nominate for deletion. We don't need articles for every minor government agency, think-tank and sub-office and then also articles about their work. The other option would be to retain this and merge the TCEB into it. It's likely only a notable organisation within Thailand itself and the agency could be comprehensively covered in an article about the industry and efforts to develop it. Either way, having effectively the same content in two places seems pointless. Stalwart111 10:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 21 March 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, MICE appears to fail GNG with a very trivial coverage outside press releases and unreliable/primary sources. It could deserve a little mention in Tourism in Thailand or more properly in Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau per Stalwart111's suggestion, surely not a separate article. Given the blatant paid editing and the continuous recreations-after-deletions I would not oppose to salt the article. Note aside, it is not clear how the sections about Bangkok and Khon Kaen are specifically related to MICE. Cavarrone 19:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I changed my mind on the basis of Stalwart111's comments. This is the remainder of a whole lot of spammy articles and I thought I might have salvaged something, but now I look at it again I don't see it has any merit. andy (talk) 14:09, 31 March 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 Redirect to Junji Ito.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hellstar Remina

Hellstar Remina (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 and consisting entirely of plot. No evidence of notability and tagged since May 2011 Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Cause I already did it. This is a procedural waste of time. So I'm ignoring all rules and just doing it because waiting another week is silly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undone per

WP:FAIT 12.249.243.118 (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment, I am in favor of adding citations for expansion. The article is poorly written and has no citations. I found multiple sources with a google search. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in manga and am not sure what constitutes a reliable source. I believe and expert in the field is need to make this determination. Valoem ^talk 18:23, 20 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 21 March 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Junji Ito and protect if needed. If you want to create the article with more sources down the line this being a redirect will protect the edit history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Bhanu

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

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Bisswajit 16:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG irretrievably. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 21 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 21 March 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails
  Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:42, 30 March 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. Tawker (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Destinations

Smart Destinations (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)

Clear and unambiguous advertising, created by a serial sockpuppeteer. Nothing to indicate that this company meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm endeavoring to make the page more neutral. Djadvance (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality isn't really the issue - notability is. We need significant evidence from third-party sources that the company meets

WP:Notability (organizations). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. Smart Destinations has been covered in major news sources, which I will now add refs to. From my reading of the notability guidelines, they seem to fit the requirements. Djadvance (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A superficial glance at the reference list would indeed give the impression that there are sources which satisfy the GNG and WP:CORP. Actually reviewing the sources, however, and each and every one of them fails of being a
  reliable, independent, third-party source which discusses the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. The Boston Globe ref, for instance, is a bunch of bulletpoints for six different events, apps and products, all obviously parroted from press releases. The ABC Local ref consists of product touts and quotes from a company rep, something the GNG explicitly debars as a measure of notability. The blogposts -- and they are blogposts -- from the NY Times and NBC websites are blatant product touts and read like press releases, something common to many of the refs. Ravenswing 22:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I found some source from brief Google news search: Consumer Electronics, Virtual Strategy Magazine, Universia Noticias, and Jewish Journal. Trivial coverage in Street Insider and PR News Wire (appears to be press releases). There may be more sources at least two of these source are reliable and the company has been covered by multiple sources, internationally. Valoem ^talk 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Err ... the first two of those links are explicitly press releases (and are in fact the same press release), with a link to the full press release at the bottom of each. The second two mention the subject in a single sentence only, something explicitly debarred as supporting notability by
  WP:GNG. Ravenswing 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for the clarification I wasn't sure if they were, but my main questions was the Jewish Journal source, more citations are definitely needed, it does not seem to pass GNG as of now. Valoem ^talk 22:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Journal source is nothing but a passing mention, in a self-described blog that gives a strong impression (to me at least) of being intentionally promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 21 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 21 March 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 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. Tawker (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Peace Officers Association

Connecticut Peace Officers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a very short-lived internet hoax that was quickly debunked. Article is a self-published Wikipedia article about the hoax, and was created by the hoaxer theirself, a

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If some new references do not show otherwise, I am for deletion. --BiH (talk) 17:42, 13 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 21 March 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Nothing has changed. The article was initially written as if the CPOA really existed, as part of the original hoax. It was quickly debunked. Then, the hoaxer switched to trying to get a Wikipedia article to document his hoax in perpeptuity. And, as noted, it fails

general notability criteria for an article in Wikipedia. Mvialt (talk) 12:43, 2 April 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. j⚛e decker^talk 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sancy Suraj

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

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

Fails

• Delete, as above & does not seem to be recognised by the Guinness bookTheLongTone (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mentioned briefly here: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.es/news/2013/9/breaking-bad-cooks-up-record-breaking-formula-for-guinness-world-records-2014-edition-51000/ but that doesn't change much. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 21 March 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was only able to also dig up mere mentions and press releases. Guinness books doesn't necessarily make you notable!
  SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 6 April 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. j⚛e decker^talk 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bohan

John Bohan (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. It appears the most notable thing he's done was being convicted for fraud. Greedo8 16:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No in depth coverage in articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His conviction for fraud is highly relevant for anyone researching his background. I suspect the request to delete was made by him or someone in his camp. 76.94.216.84 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — 76.94.216.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment, Please try to keep all conversation
  civil, and stay on the topic of his notability. I am highly offended by your baseless accusations of being "in his camp." Furthermore, just because someone was convicted of a crime it does not mean they deserve a wikipedia article. Greedo8 02:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OK boys, relax both of you. Greedo8, there is not anything to be offended about. IP, do not accuse someone without any proof of it though I think you did it in good faith I do not recommend it. . --BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 23 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - apparently this "simple fraud" has been covered a lot in media. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 23 March 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per WP:BLP1E. Take the fraud away and he's barely noticed. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with
  SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 6 April 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XLN Telecom

XLN Telecom (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)

Lack of sources seem article seem to written in a form of advertisement. Lack of sources to back the company up, and seem to mention the company in more of self promotion advertisement. simon161388 ( talk ) 12:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 13:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This seems to be a
  WP:Pointy nomination given the authors own article has been nominated for deletion, and the author of Blue Penguins has already been mentioned at WPANI. Martin451 13:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- Despite being in UK, this is not a company that I am aware of hearing. The article has far too much (self?)-promotion, amking it a horrible article. Nevertheless, if accurate, the company is almost certainly notable, so that deletion should not be an option. even so, the article needs a lot of pruning and tidying up to make a decent article of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 18 March 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 21 March 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is self promotion, outdated, more in the lines of commerical spam 209.172.25.93 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I failed to find multiple reliable secondary sources. EverythingI found was either a mere mention, or industry websites (i.e. "Serviceproviders.com" or something) that were non-notable and interested in promoting products. Until people are covering and confirming their claims, delete away.
  SarahStierch (talk) 16:44, 6 April 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. j⚛e decker^talk 02:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Shrivastava

Neeraj Shrivastava (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)

Lacks significant coverage to meet

• Weak delete - There's no significant coverage of him online in English, just mentions on various film credits for his composition of a song for
  WP:RS that mention the song. Seems that he's still in the beginnings of his career, so in a few years and more substantial coverage of his work, this might be worth looking at again. Ruby Murray 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]