Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 9

Adventure Capitalist (video game)

)

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

Fails

WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

I already listed enough sources to establish notability regardless of the other poor arguments.

Keep- Real game on mobile and pc. Various sources which are reliable.Thursby16 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage to establish notability. RPS review: [1], RPS article: [2], 148 Apps review: [3], Washington Post review: [4], Pocket Gamer review: [5], Pocket Gamer article: [6], Business Insider article: [7], brief but relevant mentions on Venture Beat [8], and Kotaku: [9]. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This virtual video game is legit for mobile, tablet and personal computer it is notable and people play it and there is lots of reliable sources and references for this game.Video gamer boy786 (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability isn't an issue here. A quick google search will find lots of resources. Ana r chyte 06:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game is free; it's a basic program where you just go back every so often and expand your company. It may be simple, but there is nothing that would suggest the game is a fraud of some sort. Players start with lemonade stands and buy more, increasing their profits to buy another business.

As the game progresses, buying more franchises costs more money, managers are available for hire to automatically increase profits outside of gameplay, and "angel investors" are used as an incentive to restart the game, and they can increase profits of individual businesses (lemonade stands, donut shops, etc.) by percentages. Halsalmonella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very poor arguments here for keeping, almost
WP:ROUTINE and do not cover the game in depth. JMHamo (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ROUTINE doesn't even apply here, it's not an event. Four reviews from reliable sources is satisfactory coverage for video game article. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

@JMHamo There's not much to cover in-depth. I suggest you play the game yoirself and see what I'm saying.

--Halsalmonella (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeline to a cure

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

Very small local organization. Not every group raising money fora good cause is notable. There appear to me no independent sources. A press release from the notable umbrella organization for which they are raising money is not an independent source. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing particularly good here, here, here and here to improve its state even for local notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another local fundraising org, no coverage, fails
WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches reveal nothing to denote notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 16 August 2015 (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 per

WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

Julia Lovell

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

Fails both

WP:ACADEMIC. White Whirlwind 咨 22:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

talk 23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

talk 23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

Keep per the three awards in the article and the following sources about her book The Opium Wars: [10] [11] [12] [13] These sources seem to be enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. However the awards are enough to meet WP:PROF IMO, so she seems to pass both notability guidelines mentioned by the nominator.
talk 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Those awards are both extremely minor (the former seems to be entirely defunct, and was awarded for less than 10 years, and she didn't even receive it). White Whirlwind 咨 01:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a young scholar, but the awards attest to
notability, especially an award for an academic book she wrote. That book is held in almost 1000 libraries, which is significant for an academic work.[14] Other books are held in around 500 libraries. We need to add a bibliography (she has written at least 3 books). LaMona (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow keep plenty of notability, even if we ignored the prizes.
Wall Street Journal and elsewhere flies past both.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

E.M.Gregory - stored some of those links on the article talk page so as not to lose them. Thx. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since at least one work was reviewed by the New York Times, this
author is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: White Whirlwind is a respected and accomplished editor, so I took this nomination seriously. I checked out the reviews of the Opium Wars book and added a selection to the article. They are not only in the standard academic journals but also in general literary journals, which convinced me that this relatively young scholar has earned a reputation as a public intellectual. She seems to be accomplished enough to be considered notable by either the academic or the author standard. I would also respectfully disagree that the Leverhulme Award is minor.ch (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A well received history book; two more on Chinese history (not a subject heavily studied in the West; at least 4 major translations, at least one well received. That looks to me enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2015 (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 Bureau of Fire Protection. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Fire Protection Region VIII

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

Local fire department--no particular notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bureau of Fire Protection. Just a region of a larger organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The government agency is
notable given that it serves an entire region of more than 4million residents. The fire bureau was most notably involved in the Typhoon Haiyan disaster response and retrieval operations, for which some of their firefighters lost their lives 1, 2 3, the Samar forest fire and even non-fire emergencies in the region. 4 5.--RioHondo (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- The point is it's not a government agency. The government agency is clearly notable. It's merely a territorial division of a government agency. It doesn't need its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:ONELOC: "Agencies of municipal or other small governments (other than national) are very frequently notable if it is customary for that type of agency to have an article. (Examples are) police and fire departments, mass transit providers, schools, and libraries." Ergo this, being a regional fire department supported by the above sources, meets WP:GNG especially since we also have articles on other regional/smaller government departments under Category:Fire departments of the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think you quite understand what I mean. It's not an independent agency. It's a division of an agency. Many agencies throughout the world are divided into regional divisions, but we don't generally have an article on each of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Necrothesp. If this were an actual agency or even a district, then it could have its own article, but instead it's a mere division. By that logic, we should have articles on every division of every Philippine government agency such as the National Bureau of Investigation or the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Note that, unlike in some countries such as the United States, the Philippines' police and fire forces are centralized at the national and not the local level (i.e. the
csdnew 09:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - the bottom line is whether there is sufficient material to support a standalone page. It looks as though there isn't so a merge is the way to go. Adding information on each of the divisions will enhance the main page and convert the 'Organization' section from bring a laundry list. Just Chilling (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A look at those RS I posted says there is though. Anyway there are only
  NCRPO similar to the Armed Forces of the Philippines having Category:Regional commands of the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Merge per Necrothesp. Just Chilling's commentary hits to the core of the issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 16 August 2015 (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. Cited and now clearly notable. Overall consensus to keep (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal (book)

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

Uncited stub about a 1999 book on politics. Not notable and completely uncited. Ogress _smash! 22:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took me a while, but I did find some stuff in Highbeam after I waded through all of the false positives.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well the "completely uncited" is taken care of and the article is now acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 15 August 2015 (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) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

Doug and Mary Lou Nemanic

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

Promotional and non notable. Too much of a personal memoir, so i assume there's considerable conflict of interest. I tried fixing it, but gave up if their project of their teamwork is indeed notable, the article would need to be rewritten completely, and the first step in doing that is to delete this and start over. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer who accepted the article, I may have a little COI here. I'm neutral here. Regards--
Talk 00:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep. The article has
WP:CREATIVE. So let's get it fixed, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Guggenheim Award, United States Hockey Hall of Fame, one documentary has won a film festival category, the other is traveling academic circles and has aired on the metro-area cable channel. AfD Nomination does not meet
WP:ATD. 009o9 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

ehhh Keep- But it needs some serious cleaning up to do. The article is much too long for the amount of sources that exist for it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2015 (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.

Potomac (currency)

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

Local currency with almost no secondary source coverage. Per organization's last Facebook post (almost 2 years ago), less than 2500 in circulation. Not notable. agtx 21:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some coverage, not enough to sustain notability. Neutrality^talk 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (I would've suggested moving elsewhere which is the best option but there's no target) as my searches found nothing good. It's not surprising as it's a new localized currency. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage doesn't pass
WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 16 August 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wendi Knight

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards or nominations. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. Claim that she had a director's credit on the installment of a cookie-cutter porn series whose box cover made a fleeting appearance in a notable mainstream film is preposterously far below the level required to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 3x won of awards, 7x interwiki, for me - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for everyone else and per policy - Not notable. –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be said (again) that scene-related porn award wins don't count toward notability. Neither does the existence of other language Wikipedia articles about the subject. How many times will you bring up these invalid criteria? • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someday WP:SUBTROPICALMAN-NOTABILITY will become a blue link, but today is not that day. Until then, we judge notability on existing guidelines & policies, not on personal opinion. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scene awards to not qualify for WP:PORNBIO, no coverage in independent re;liable sources otherwise. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Even if you count Adult Video News as a reliable source, the AVN article is not enough to satisfy GNG by itself. No other significant RS coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Not enough coverage to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 16 August 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Records (Pakistan)

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

Tagged as not meeting inclusion criteria since May 2014 and not fixed, one of a nest of articles edited by a closed circle of people with strong suspicions of promotional intent. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very obviously fails
WP:CORP and I'm always worried that these articles about record companies can be used to create little walled gardens to insert articles about non-notable artists. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my seaches found nothing good and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article, with no RS. Searches provided nothing to indicate it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 16 August 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Alliance for Local Living Economies

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

This article is a press release with no

notability of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply