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 long-standing precedents. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 12:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Blatantly non-notable. 17 Google hits. All but 2 are WP mirrors, this article, or the school's Facebook page. The other two aren't significant coverage. If someone can/will find offline sources, great. If not, this should be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) high schools still have to be notable to be kept -- Jakob ( talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly not notable. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • To clarify my position, I don't believe "most schools are kept" means that "all schools should be kept." While many schools may be notable, and thus should be exempt from A7, they shouldn't be exempt from AfD. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 15:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

If a topic is notable it is "exempt" from AfD, in the sense that the article should not be deleted. A7 applies when the article doesn't even indicate the topic's notability, and educational institutions are explicitly excluded. Lagrange 613 17:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep but improve referencing. The argument from Google is notoriously dangerous for establishing notability, especially for relatively undeveloped countries where news coverage is not always archived online - or searched by Google. In addition the name of the school creates noise in search (particularly since the school is often listed without the "Senior Secondary" part of the name). There are a plethora of directory entries, plus news mentions such as this (entirely about a student at the school) which are not useful to filling out the article but indicate it does have the notability expected of a school. And there are probably news mentions I cannot find because they are in Hindi or some other language I can't read. As the cited notability guideline states, it is generally best to seek sources in order to improve the referencing of such an article. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Blatantly and clearly is notable as a secondary school per long-established precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Necrothesp: I'm afraid you're mistaken. See WP:NONPROFIT and the subsection WP:NSCHOOL. -- Jakob ( talk) 00:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Aren't schools only automatically important enough to pass A7? We don't have anything where "everything of type X is notable". Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• No, I'm not mistaken. I've been here a long time and we have this argument every few days. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Verified secondary schools always end up being kept. That equals consensus and that is how Wikipedia functions. We always have a few editors who disagree, but that doesn't change the outcome. Guidelines are guidelines; they're not set in stone. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep – agreed with Yngvadottir; referencing needs to be improved. United States Man ( talk) 00:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Verified secondary schools are typically retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 08:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep as usual. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 09:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect Since no independent sources have been provided regarding this school by the article's author (despite repeated efforts to elicit such sources from the author on the part of several editors who have been trying to shepherd this article along) and since no sources have been found by editors other than the author, there seems to be nothing on which to base a verifiable article from. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not advocate the retention of totally unsourced articles. It is merely a guideline that suggests that most (but not necessarily all) secondary schools are notable, but that the requirements of WP:ORG still apply. Given a total lack of sourcing as we have here, SCHOOLOUTCOMES recommends merging and redirecting the article to an article about the school district or locality that best fits. In this case, the only truly verifiable aspect of this school from independent sources is its mere existence, in which case I suggest a simple redirect to List of educational institutions in Allahabad. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 11:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • It's clearly not unsourced. Its existence is proven. That's enough for an article. Lack of further sourcing is a reason for expansion, but not for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I would hope for a better argument than it exists. Better sourcing has been sought and found lacking. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 12:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I would hope for a better argument than there aren't many sources in the article (for an Indian school this is not terribly surprising) so it isn't notable! Generally we have always held that secondary schools whose existence is verified are notable simply because they exist. There's no reason to go against that precedent and consensus for this school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
        • And even if anyone wants to go against the precedent and consensus, this is a wrong venue. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 15:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment As per User:WikiDan61, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't say we should keep unreferenced articles. Even WP:SCH/AG says that "articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept" (emphasis mine) and that "It is recommended that editors only create a school article when its content shows that it already passes the notability guideline by displaying significant coverage in reliable sources." WP:NHS (which some people seem to be using to vote keep) says that "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically." and "There are thousands of high schools for which no independent reliable sources have been published." WP:NSCHOOL (which is an actual guideline) says "All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both." Can anyone point to a discussion that says that all high schools are inherently and always notable?

On another note, I have a compromise in mind: the article is redirected to List of schools in India or similar and the content is moved to the draft namespace, pending addition of reliable independent sources. -- Jakob ( talk) 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Again; all your lengthy talks can go to WP:VILLAGEPUMP or somewhere else to debate against WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 16:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

In the many years I've been here I honestly can't remember an article on a verified secondary school being deleted. That's consensus. We've had this discussion so many times it's really quite tedious. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment Please recall that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a policy or even a guideline. The page itself (at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#Citing this page in AfD) states that consensus can change and that SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not trump standard notability guidelines. Just sayin' ... WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 17:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • No, it merely indicates a consensus, which is how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but consensus can change, and must be taken on a case-by-case basis. The consensus here appears to be to keep the page, but that consensus appears to be based on prior consensus rather than actual Wikipedia policy. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 17:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
      • This is a wrong venue to change past consensus! (Lets hope that third time is a charm!) §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 17:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
      • AfDs are largely based on opinion. Opinions have been given. The consensus remains. One or two people claiming that their arguments are ever so policy based and everyone else's aren't doesn't change that. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - large secondary school that, when local research is carried out, will probably be able to be brought into compliance with WP:ORG. There is never much on the Internet about Indian schools, unlike say US schools, so we should avoid systemic bias and await hard copy searches. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment about sources. There is a bi-directional language barrier here; the creator of the page, Pratham, has said that they will provide sources clipped from the local papers "at the appropriate time", and even named two specific newspaper publishers unprompted... but gave us no dates, nor URLs. Not sure if the "appropriate time" they intended to communicate, was more like when-I-am-ready-to-give-wikipedia-the-sources-I-will, or rather, when-the-publishers-are-ready-to-finally-report-on-our-awesome-school-the-appropriate-time-will-have-arrived.  :-)   Anybody able to read the Allahabad-specific sections of Dainik Jagran or of Amar Ujala newspapers? They are online, but I was unable to figure out how to search for what we seek; somebody fluent is needed. Please send suggestions (if any) to my user-talkpage, to avoid further cluttering this AfD. ;-)   Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

as for the 'why keep?' policy-tangent question, methinks WP:GEOLAND + WP:GOVERNMENT + WP:SFoD equals WP:42, per my reading of the 0b0101th pillar

p.s. While I'm here, guess I may as well chime in, and comment about Dah Consensus... my understanding is that the 'real' reason we almost always keep high schools, is because they symbolically represent the geogaphical-political-school-district of a physical place, and that inhabited physical places are " nigh-inherently notable" per long-standing (essay!) consensus. The argument basically is, that if a place is inhabited, and has a name, that means said place is organized politically. Thus, there *are* going to be a very large number of government documents which demonstrate WP:42 in some pedantic sense... history of human civilization... and even if said sources are not *yet* published, someday they will be. Strong consensus, but definitely pretty handwavy, and almost certainly with a strong dose of pillar five thrown in.   Of course, methinks the real reason for the always-keep-highschools-approach is that our bait-n-switch tactic gets us a lot of new editors, proud of their high school. Some of them are headstrong; WikiDan61 can back me up on that one.  :-)   But the good ones eventually learn, and stick around as valuable wikipedians, as they go through college or internships or teaching-careers or whatever. See also, for much the same reasons, our voluminous collection of teevee and music and nakedness articles... all of them, gateway drugs to becoming WP:ADDICTED, their true (and truly insidious) purpose methinks. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

IP, replied to you on your talk page. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am sorry for all the unintentional wrong things i have done. Please pardon me. I will not do it again. And please help me by giving me ideas to improve my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Consensus is that secondary schools are notable. I'm not sure I agree, but this isn't the place to argue that. We shouldn't expect to find extensive online English-language coverage of schools in India. Demanding deletion on the basis that we should is the sort of thing that leads to systemic bias. Lagrange 613 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per precedent set by the closures of 100s if not 1,000s school AfDs (documented at WP:OUTCOMES). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Contested prod. My reasoning remains unchanged: Every major corporation (and most non-major ones) have customer feedback forms on their website and at their stores. Google's feedback form is competely generic and is no more notable than the stack of "we value your comments" cards at the end of a Burger King counter.   Mogism ( talk) 21:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Raname it as discussed in Talk:Google Feedback#Raname. You're even the same person the the person who proposed it for deletion. If you're going to nominate an article for deletion, don't waste other people's time proposing it's deletion first. Blackbombchu ( talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Nominating it at AFD is what is supposed to happen if someone contests a proposed deletion. What would you suggest I do instead? Per my comments on the prod and above, there is no way this totally unreferenced piece of original research is appropriate content for Wikipedia. I don't see how you plan to write a broader Internet feedback article as you propose on the talkpage, even if you could persuade people that it's worthwhile, since the sources just don't exist - the topic is mundane and uncontroversial enough that nobody is ever going to publish papers on it, and in the absence of those papers it's not something Wikipedia can or should be covering.  Mogism ( talk) 21:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

According to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, I'm allowed to create an article when I can't find any sources if I assume other people are going to find them later. Blackbombchu ( talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

To clarify what Mogism wrote, the purpose of proposed deletion is to avoid taking up people's time with a full deletion discussion like this one if one is sufficiently confident that the justification for deleting the article is sound and thinks the request might not be contested. If that doesn't go as planned, though (because someone removes the PROD tag), then a discussion is the natural next step if there hasn't also been an improvement in the situation that motivated the PROD placement.

You're correct that having no references (other than for a biography of a living person) is permitted. But sources that confirm notability have to exist. People who can't find them and doubt that they exist can then reasonably confer to discuss the article's deletion. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Maybe it should be moved to Wikisource since so few sources already exist about feedback. Blackbombchu ( talk) 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

No go. Things on Wikisource have to be verifiable, and Wikipedia does not count as a verifiable source. - Purplewowies ( talk) 02:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It looks like you missed my point. Wikisource is not Wikipedia, it's its sister project. Calling Wikisource part of Wikipedia is like calling Wikipedia part of Wikimedia commons. Maybe you thought the Word Wikipedia meant Wikimedia foundation which has all 12 sister projects one of which is Wikipedia. There's a link to the Wikimedia foundation at the bottom of all Wikipedia pages. Blackbombchu ( talk) 03:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

What I really meant to suggest was that Wikisource be used for original research of Google Feedback and Bing feedback, not source the article Google Feedback. Blackbombchu ( talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

As someone who has edited Wikimedia projects for over 5 years, I know that there are different wikis under the Wikimedia "umbrella". What I meant is that we cannot put the content of Google Feedback from here on Wikisource because it does not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikisource. - Purplewowies ( talk) 03:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• delete no sources, unlikely to ever be sources. Wikipedia is NOT everything and mere existence is not sufficient rationale for a stand alone article. With no sourced content, there is no value in renaming or re-purposing for anything else vaguely related that might of itself be notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. To repeat my comment on the article's talk page from when I posted a notability tag there, "The article doesn't present any information about the feedback feature on Google websites that materially sets it apart from feedback links on many other websites so as to indicate why an article just for Google's feedback is warranted. References to sources dealing specifically and amply with Google's feedback mechanism are needed to validate this focus on the subject." (Blackbombchu has suggested having an article with the title "Internet feedback" instead, but that's a separate matter. I suspect that there hasn't been any general coverage of the feedback feature on various websites either.) I am finding pages where it's discussed: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. No reliable sources, but definitely signs of Google Feedback being a topic of discussion, as far as that goes. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources. Nothing I can find treats the topic as the subject of an article/feature besides tutorials or unreliable sources. The topic itself is trivial, every big service has customer support, and unless there are sources for this one, I don't see why it should be an exception. (Disclaimer: saw the link to this from a proposal by the author to change inclusion/verifiability standards on VP.) —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unsourced, no evidence that this is a notable topic. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 13:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - just not notable, fails WP:GNG. ukexpat ( talk) 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Good lord. Not notable, not important, not sourced, not informative, not anything. No reason for this to be on Wikipedia, no reason for you to defend it. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This feature of the Google family of websites is not notable. There's no independent coverage in reliable sources. Lagrange 613 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - There's nothing special about Google's feedback form(s) that has given rise to any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I can find none in my searches. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Other matters discussed here are not relevant to the clear consensus that this does not (yet) meet Wikipedia's notability threshold. JohnCD ( talk) 17:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Another altcoin article. Reads like a WP:PROMO in addition to failing WP:GNG due to lack of sources. Citation Needed | Talk 20:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment This is great...an AfD with the start of it saying "Another alcoin article" from the creator of Dogecoin. I love to see how impartial you can be. Much hate, no value Huey2323 ( talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

The difference is though, Dogecoin is clearly notable, due to the multiple nontrivial mentions in reliable sources (even if it is as a joke). Maybe we should compare? Stablecoin vs Dogecoin. Not that this is relevant, of course ( WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you want to make an actual accusation of WP:COI based on that, then feel free, otherwise please stop saying the same thing over and over (although, even if the original poster did have COI, that wouldnt affect the people voting delete). Benboy00 ( talk) 18:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

In addition, the article creator seems to be a WP:SPA with his/her only edits on one article that he created. Citation Needed | Talk 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Both of those references are press releases by Stablecoin. Stablecoin has re-started very recently, and this page is no doubt part of their "awareness campaign". They desperately need exposure (because the more people that are interested, the higher the price will be), and they seem pretty desperate to keep the price high. Also, there doesnt seem to be any news. The problem with things like this is that when theyre starting up, its pretty much a pyramid/ponzi scheme. It rewards early investors to the point that using it as a currency would be silly. The reason i think this should be deleted, though, is because its not notable (yet?) and is clearly promotional. Benboy00 ( talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• The source just added by a different SPA is also a press release from Stablecoin. Benboy00 ( talk) 22:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - I am declaring my neutrality in this discussion due to me being a regular of /g/ and /pol/, which happens to be main hotspots for discussion regarding this specific coin. I've also made a statement on a StableCoin general on 4chan (listed here at http://i.imgur.com/nkzQSGZ.png, because 4chan is blacklisted) explaining the issues that the article currently faces. Citation Needed | Talk 22:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

There is a local source from a NBC affiliate in Virginia that talks about the coin, but this won't be enough. Either way, here's the source: http://www.wsls.com/story/24227113/innovative-bitcoin-alternative-stablecoin-posts-strong-gains-in-return Citation Needed | Talk 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• • Thats from here, which is a press release. I'm not sure if we can rly count that as a reliable source, although maybe since the local news service reposted it, it might count (not sure of the exact rules on that). Benboy00 ( talk) 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the article reads like an advertisement. SamanthaPuckettIndo ( talk) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I am, along with others, actively changing the page due to the direction of the text in the article. When the page was first created it did sound like a promotional page. I have removed a lot of wording that would make it look that way. I am continuing to pull sources and other information from the developer to expand on the history and revisions of the topic. I will continue to update as the information comes in. Huey2323 ( talk) 14:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment As it stands, the entirety of the section "mixing service" is a copyvio from here. The problem with all these sites is that none of them count as a reliable source under WP:RELIABLE. This is, as stated before, "just another altcoin article". Bitcoin is notable because it has a whole heap of news coverage (and some serious adoption). Coinye is notable because it has a load of news coverage. This, however, does not have coverage in reliable independent sources. Of the current 8 sources: 3 are forums, 1 is a blogspot page, 3 are crypto-currency specialist websites, and the last is a press release website. Unless this changes, the page is unlikely to remain. Benboy00 ( talk) 15:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment Therefore, from your reasoning, in order to be "relevant" the "news" has to cover it? That doesn't seem to be the way to determine relevancy due to the slant of popular new organizations. As I stated before, I will be updating the page along with references to make it less than promotional. You are wrong about who copied from where...The mixing information was copied from here [9] which is directly from the developer. Huey2323 ( talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not his reasoning, is the standard Wikipedia policy: WP:GNG. Smite-Meister ( talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter where it was copied from unless that source had a compatible CCP License (which it doesn't). Copying verbatim is not allowed. Please see WP:COPYPASTE. Also, as smite-meister says, WP:GNG is wikipedia policy, and it does make sense. There are also several other policies that this page probably fails, like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Benboy00 ( talk) 09:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. Refs provided are forums and marketing/press release sites and not RS coverage. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. As mentioned above, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Utter failure of GNG. Sources are blogs or promotional press releases. Joint work of several SPA authors. I only wish that there was a faster way to delete articles like this. Smite-Meister ( talk) 18:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

There is, but since AfD was started, it's probably best to finish it instead of WP:SPEEDY. However, WP:SNOWBALL may apply. Benboy00 ( talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: StableCoin looks as if it has potential, but it still doesn't pass the GNG. Perhaps in the future. Tractor Tyres ( talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No independent coverage in reliable sources. This reads like the articles for non-notable businesses that get deleted all the time. I suspect it was written with a similar promotional purpose in mind. Lagrange 613 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment This looks like a WP:SNOWBALL. Any admins want to delete? Benboy00 ( talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Review Article has been improved and its sources as well, if you think it should be rewritten just rewrite it not delete. -- Rezonansowy ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Unfortunately, sources have not actually been improved. Since I listed the sources and why they are not suitable (8th Jan) , nothing has been added. The people here don't seem to think the article should be rewritten (certainly I dont), we think it should be deleted. Benboy00 ( talk) 11:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Unfortunately, you have created such a rapport with the 4chan community, they seem to think that your suggestion to delete this page is highly regarded. In your previous post you recommend that it be deleted but it seems that you have an agenda ( http://i.imgur.com/nkzQSGZ.png). I have updated the page to not be promotional but only facts that haven't reported by multiple people (including the actual developer). If people still think that it needs changed, please let me know.

Comment First of all, please sign your posts (4~'s). Next, thats not me, thats the nominator. Your link doesnt really show that he has an agenda. It shows that he's following wikipedia policy. The thing you dont seem to understand is that we dont think this article could necessarily be improved, we think it shouldnt exist in any form (at least with this title). You cannot make a subject more notable by editing wikipedia. There is nothing you can do to this article to change our minds unless you can find reliable sources for it (that satisfy WP:GNG). This has nothing to do with 4chan (I dont think I've even visited 4chan in the past few years) and I would be surprised if many of the people responding here have even seen that thread. Just because people disagree with you, doesnt mean they have an agenda, and thats actually quite a serious accusation. Since that link clearly doesnt show an agenda, do you have any other evidence? Thanks, Benboy00 ( talk) 18:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

First off, I uploaded that myself to declare myself neutral in this discussion because I do have a potential WP:COI with this coin due to me visiting /g/ regularly (apparently, you visit /g/ too, so we both have 'em). Secondly, my nomination doesn't count as a vote or anything like that, except to bring to attention possible concerns and problems with the article. Thirdly, the consensus seems to be plenty for deletion regardless of any "agenda" because so far the article has not been improved according to the eyes of the community. You won't change any minds by accusing me of having an agenda, but you can change minds if there is massive improvement. Citation Needed | Talk 22:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Subject fails notability. Did not find mention in any reliable sources in my Google searches of books, newspapers, academic journals/sources, or in the first 50 search results returned by Google's web search. I tried verifying reliability of cited sources within the article, and all failed to meet WP:RS; they were not close calls, and were so far from being reliable that I removed the citations and cited claims. Without any reliable sources to work from, the article cannot be improved. Please post any reliable sources on the topic if you find them. -- Agyle ( talk) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I've struggled hard to find notability and failed... Huey2323 is clearly affiliated with stablecoin and trying to spam wikipedia. VinceSamios ( talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment I have no close connections to StableCoin nor have I even spoken with the developer. I am not trying to spam wikipedia, just trying to ensure that the information about cryptocurrency is accurate. Huey2323 ( talk) 15:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note Added a credible resource for news with a comment about the security and encryption of the coin Huey2323 ( talk) 14:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The only mention of stablecoin in that article is "Anoncoin claims to be more anonymous (obviously) and Stablecoin to have "military-grade" encryption." Clearly a passing reference. Clearly impossible to use to establish notability. Benboy00 ( talk) 14:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Still not notable. Lagrange 613 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It is still a reference, nonetheless, from a reliable source Huey2323 ( talk) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

See the general notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention". Lagrange 613 16:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I have read and understand. Please see the above note, it does not claim notability, just a reference. Huey2323 ( talk) 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

In that case, it isnt relevant to his AfD discussion. Please only post relevant information and discussion. Thanks, Benboy00 ( talk) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

No, thank you, for obscuring the reason for this AfD discussion. I mentioned that I would be updating and making the page informative and less like a promotion. With the help of Agyle it seems to be there. Now, in reference to the Note above, I believe that it is very relevant to the discussion as it shows improvements to the article in this AfD. Huey2323 ( talk) 17:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Another pretty serious allegation. The reason most people are saying delete is an utter failure of notability. This subject is, to most of the people here, not notable, and this is likely going to be the opinion of the closing admin. This argument is what you need to rebut. Notability alone is grounds to delete this article. Posting things not related to this is counter productive. Benboy00 ( talk) 17:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Please explain "Posting things not related to this is counter productive" Huey2323 ( talk) 17:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Posting things not related to the notability of the subject is counter productive as it leads people to believe that you accept that the article isn't notable, and are trying to paper over that. If you dont address the notability problem, your argument is irrelevant. It also means that people with this page on their watchlist have to check back for irrelevant material, which is annoying. Benboy00 ( talk) 17:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

So, a Note about upgrading the article to conform more towards guidelines "annoys" you? WP:GNG was not the only thing that the original poster had a concern with. It was also WP:PROMO. I am beginning to question your "neutrality" to this AfD. Huey2323 ( talk) 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Notability is a crucial standard by which topics are judged to belong in the encyclopedia or not. It is important for upholding all three core content policies. The nominator also noted that the content seems promotional, which puts the article in conflict with one of those policies, namely that Wikipedia be written from a neutral point of view. While this issue speaks to the article's quality, addressing it does not make the topic notable, which again is necessary for inclusion. You're new here, and it's fine that you're not yet familiar with these policies and guidelines. But until you are, please don't question others' motives. Assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks are also cornerstones of Wikipedia. Lagrange 613 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Understood, I was just making a note that I was continuing to upgrade the article to make it less WP:PROMO. I get thwarted at every turn to upgrade and change the article by Benboy00 and it seems odd that his campaign is all criticism. I have stated that I have no contact or close ties with the developer of the software and I am editing from a neutral point of view. With that being said, I do not think anything in the article can be refuted and deemed WP:PROMO at this point. Huey2323 ( talk) 20:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I haven't made any edits recently to the page, so I'm not sure what you mean by "thwarted". It's great that you want to help wikipedia, but the problem is that there isn't much point in trying to improve the article if its going to be deleted anyway. Your efforts would be better spent looking for reliable sources to help stop the deletion of this page. Benboy00 ( talk) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Instead of trying to sit back and criticize, you may want to attempt to help people try and get accustomed to the community. Not only did Agyle make his suggestions, but also edited the page in a way to clear up any issues he had with it. The only contribution you have made is to the AfD, which is not very welcoming. Huey2323 ( talk) 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Since it has now been 7 days, it seems likely that this AfD will be closed (presumably as delete, although i probably count as biased (because of my delete vote)). If anyone has any more keep arguments, or can find any more sources, now is probably the time to show that. Benboy00 ( talk) 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment I would like to note that the original AfD creator, Citation Needed, is the creator of a similar page Dogecoin. I am not sure if this is a WP:COI since there where no edits from him to the main article. Although, this section would indicate that he has direct ties to marketing another altcoin. Huey2323 ( talk) 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ok, again, this is a serious accusation. If you truly believe that he has WP:COI, and can give some sort of evidence for this, then feel free to do so. However, creating an article on a similar topic is NOT evidence for a COI. If you look at the way he started that article, you would see that it was supported with sources from the very beginning. This article was not. As a WP:SPA, you are accusing an established non-SPA editor of COI. I understand that you are new, but surely you can see why this is not the smartest thing to do, especially when there is no actual evidence. User:Citation Needed has conducted himself very well in this AfD, and you have made several accusations against others. Dogecoin is notable. StableCoin is seemingly not. Dogecoin has several reliable sources. Stablecoin does not. I already made this clear here. Please stop with these baseless accusations, or you may be sanctioned. Benboy00 ( talk) 21:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

ANI notice: I've started a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Huey's behavior and bad faith accusations. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Huey2323_and_bad_faith_accusations. Citation Needed | Talk 23:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mini apolis 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Wait until this gets coverage in books or academic journals, or until the news sources are treating it as an established subject, as something whose existence is assumed. Look at Bitcoin: news sources don't necessarily assume that people know what it is, but their stories about it are generally "Here's what happened regarding Bitcoin, a computerised currency" rather than "Someone just invented a computerised currency, Bitcoin". At the moment, everything out there is either the really basic news stuff — we need sources that are independent of their subject, including chronologically, so that we won't be the newspaper — or things like forums and YouTube videos. Nothing solid on which a proper encyclopedia article can be written. Nyttend ( talk) 00:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. A few other cryptocurrencies meet notability standards, but StableCoin has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Only mentioned in passing at most. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 03:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's only sources are a press release from the band's record label, a Wordpress blog, and two articles from a website that does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy Hirolovesswords ( talk) 06:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn - Notability established by Gongshow's sources. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 21:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - two Allmusic reviews [10] [11], two more at Exclaim! [12] [13], and a Noisecreep article on the band's singer joining another band [14]. I'm not seeing much else in reliable sources, but these write-ups in my view satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gong  show 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per User:Gongshow's sources plus these: [15], [16], [17], [18] - not all really significant but the coverage as whole is sufficient to satisfy notability guidelines, and it's usually the case that metal bands with this sort of coverage online have further coverage in print sources that don't show up on Google searches. -- Michig ( talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 7. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Not notable and is not much of an article in the first place. Half of what little is there isn't even about him. United States Man ( talk) 00:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Notoriety isn't inherited. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No indication of notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Tragic but Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL either. ...William 12:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as NN. However ... this could be re-created if he was tied, by a reliable source, to the tortures. Bearian ( talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The lone Pravda article doesn't establish notability. I can't find any other reliable sources for James Stacy or James Stacy Adams, which was apparently his full name. Lagrange 613 01:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect -- Adams was a well-respected senior NCO, whose motto was "with proper NCO leadership, a private can do no wrong" -- and then his Battalion was linked to the infamous Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. If we are all agreed that there are currently insufficient references to justify a stand alone article about Adams and his role in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse I suggest the article should be changed to a redirect to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. I suggest that redirect has to preserves the contribution history. The GFDL and CC licenses we release our intellectual property under require preserving the contribution history of articles, when they are merged into another article. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The source states that "with proper NCO leadership, a private can do no wrong" was "One of his favorite sayings", not his motto and ends by stating that "At this time, there has not been a connection made between the cause of Adams' death and events surrounding Abu Ghraib prison", though the author had some personal concerns that there might be. As such, you seem to be drawing a rather long bow here, though I agree that a connection is probable. Nick-D ( talk) 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- I included a paragraph about James Stacy Adams in the article about the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion (United States) -- Adams's unit. Is there anyone here who doesn't agree some coverage of Adams belongs in that article? Geo Swan ( talk) 22:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Since when are opinion articles in Pravda a reliable source? Also, you've inserted material which isn't supported by any source and duplicated the only RS. I've just edited this down. Nick-D ( talk) 07:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indications of notability. Googling "James Stacy" "Abu Ghraib" does not produce any additional useful references so it appears that the various inquiries did not find that Stacy had a significant role or there were long-term consequences arising from his tragic death. Nick-D ( talk) 07:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Essentially promotional article with local references DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per DGG. Articlespam. ukexpat ( talk) 14:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The brief mention in the Guardian piece cited in the article is the only coverage I can find for Freedom Centre International or South London Temple, its former name. It's not enough for notability. The History section is largely plagiarized from the church's website. Lagrange 613 01:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq ( talk) 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Have added half-dozen cites to article evidencing notability from sources such as The Guardian, The Sun, Pitchfork, and MTV UK, and there are more out there. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 04:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Nomination withdrawn - please close I was too quick to nominate; thanks, Hobbes. Boleyn ( talk) 06:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The policy based arguments fall mostly on the side of deletion Guerillero | My Talk 05:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

WP:BLP1E: McFarland is "notable" solely as the designer of the obverse of the 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coin, which received some amount of press among coin enthusiasts, but no wider coverage. If there was an article about the coin, I would redirect to that, but there isn't. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as not biographically notable under the general guidelines or as a "creative professional". She had good PR, but that is all it is. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I cannot find any coverage beyond items to the effect of "the coin was designed by Cassie McFarland, of San Luis Obipso, California, who won the ..."; no features, nothing biographical. Go Phightins ! 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Original author here - Numismatic researchers do seek out biographical information of the sort presented here. As for "no wider coverage", it's true she's beginning her career, but surely a work of public art, mass produced by the United States Government, is relatively wide coverage for an artist? Hypnopompus ( talk) 18:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have added the {{ WikiProject Numismatics}} banner to Talk:Cassie McFarland, which should pop the article up onto the article alerts section of that project. Perhaps someone in that community can give a hand to this discussion. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 18:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• It breaks my heart, because the article is in such better shape than the vast majority that get sent to AfD. But she's not notable independent of this one creation, which may not be notable itself. Usefulness to numismatic researchers or anyone else isn't enough. If she goes on to do lots of other great things then this article can be re-created, but until then, delete. Lagrange 613 01:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• You do bring up a good point. Incubation is possible. Go Phightins ! 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete without prejudice to recreation if she does further work attracting coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This talk of deleting is non-sense. There are literally tens of thousands of wikipedia pages with less importance. As a numismatic scholar and expert in the field, this individual artist, though young, is responsible for the design on three U.S. coins- the first which feature a lenticular shape in the country's history. Furthermore, the author appears to have done more than an adequate job beginning her entry and citing sources. The coin will come out in a few months and likely win awards- which I'm sure will be fodder for additional input on this page. Please be respectful of someone who is trying to add a definitive entry for an individual that will soon receive heavy attention from people who are interested in the field of numismatics and medallic art." —  comment added by Numismatics ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

BLP for a local teacher/administrator with no significant references, no assertion of notability, and written by a Conflict-of-Interest editor. My search found no independent reliable sources -- let alone significant coverage. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Although a BLP, this is essentially written as a WP:MEMORIAL. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nominator. Notability not found. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC). reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nominator. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nominator said it all. Lagrange 613 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Borderline A7 speedy deletion. As the nominator says, there is no assertion of notability in the article, despite a lot of fluff. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Timeline list of Hasidic leaders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Orphan page that isn't even a list of what it claims to be about. No significant edits since well over a year ago . Page should be "userfied" until ready for promotion back to article-space. Ajh1492 ( talk) 17:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 18:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete (or: rename and userfy but rename if recreated): I have always wondered what the purpose of this list is. There have been very many (several thousand) Hasidic leaders since the times of Hasidism's founder, the Baal Shem Tov, most of whom are easily notable per WP:GNG (only some of which have articles; see Category:Hasidic rebbes), but I can see no logic in organizing them with a timeline. Some of the content of this page could be used, renamed, to form a Timeline of Hasidism, but even so, the article is so incomplete that user-fication is required. (The usual way of organizing Hasidic leaders is by dynasty; Yitzhak Alfasi's books on Hasidic leaders and dynasties, the standard reference works in this field, and similar works by other authors all use the dynastic organizational scheme.) הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 18:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  Amended: who cares what name it has in userspace? הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 19:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and הסרפד. This looks like a term paper project. It is also unclear whether the maps are public domain or not. Hasidic Judaism already covers the same subject. Yoninah ( talk) 18:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete – per others. United States Man ( talk) 02:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete and userfy. The article is essentially content-free, a skeleton around which an article may have grown if the primary author (seemingly an occasional editor) had gotten around to it. The maps seem fine to me, unless I'm missing something. Lagrange 613 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Lexx#Minor_characters. Anything worth merging (but note the absence of any sources) can be retrieved from the article history. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 12:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

This does not establish notability independent of Lexx through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 15:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Selective merge to Lexx#Minor characters. Leave out the song lyrics. Not independently notable. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 15:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge. Non notable. Martin451 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Lexx#Minor characters. Not notable. Could also be merged, but there's so little information beyond the song lyrics that it doesn't really seem worthwhile. The song was actually pretty funny, but it's best detailed on Wikia and other fansites. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The claims to notability for this American musician are based upon membership of the band Juniper Sky, his association with Robt Ptak and his contributions to some tribute albums. I cannot find any evidence that the subject of this article meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guide, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong. — sparklism ^hey! 14:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 14:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no evidence of notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I gave an honest effort in looking for independent sources for this artist and could find none. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 16:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I don't see the coverage that shows notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Roy Dotrice#Personal life. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

It may seem I have a vendetta against the Dotrices, but I don't! People don't generally inherit notability from their far more well-known family members (well, not on Wikipedia at the moment). Kay Dotrice died only a few years ago and I would expect a significant obituary somewhere to recognise her enduring importance. Unfortunately I can only find a very brief death notice. Should we put an end to this article, or is there something I'm missing? Sionk ( talk) 14:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Roy Dotrice#Personal life. She did appear in 25 episodes of Crossroads (soap opera), but I can't find any other major film or TV roles, or any details about major stage roles. It's possible there is some press coverage from 70s or 80s but so far there's no evidence she meets WP:ACTOR or WP:BIO. In any case, there's very little info in the article, and I'm not sure she was really best known for her Shakespearean work (she was also in Cheech & Chong's The Corsican Brothers in a small role alongside her husband). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 16:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Tutorial. Most appropriate redirect seems to be Tutorial, but if necessary the target can be changed after discussion on the talk page. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Poorly-sourced article about a product, that seems to exists as a WP:COATRACK for WP:LINKSPAM and WP:REFSPAM. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• weak keep This gets no good book hits, but it does seem to get a decent set of web hits. That said, the text we have now is terribly promotional and I wouldn't object to a WP:TNT deletion. Mangoe ( talk) 14:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect and Merge into Infomercial. "Explainer video" is an unhandy neologism. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect and Merge to E-learning or Tutorial. ///EuroCar GT 21:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and CSD G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 08:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR. majority of the sources are track listing or SPS. CSD was challenged by the creator of the previously speedied version. Ish dar ian 12:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Sigh... It's been speedied five times and protected against recreation twice. Let's bury it for good. Self-promotion by non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Terrible Judgements For them to even not give enough time to edit and gather information is not fair nor is it jusifiable. I'm sure you want to put some more deletions under your belt, but do it to another page. There was still NO LOGICAL explanation on to why the page was marked for deletion in the first place because there are COUNTLESS amounts of pages that lack resources and verifiable information. Please stop doing the absolute most & enjoy your day gentlemen. User talk:Urbaninformative Question? —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete All info that could make him somewhat notable is unsourced and I doubt some of it is true at all (signed to Young Money? featured on We Are Young Money? Google doesn't seem to think so.) Even if that was true still fails WP:NMUSIC. Urbaninformative's comment above is WP:OTHER and I'd also suggest him to keep civil. 2Flows ( talk) 17:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt No evidence of WP:MUSIC notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep There seems to be enough evidence of WP:MUSIC notability. Also it has been updated with more/better sources. hiphopfeign ^Talk 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete again Previous discussion covers it. No media coverage (or any other reliable sources) cited to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Most of the references that are cited are either IMDB-like artist pages that duplicate the same information, or links to purchase art; these are not the same as media coverage, nor indicative of widespread respect in the field. Appears to be simply self-promotional content, created by a user whose username indicates they are a member of the same band as this artist. Josh3580 _{talk/ hist} 04:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Exo members#Lay. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Lay (singer) (  | 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 on his own. 70% of article content is about his band, no notable solo projects (movie or solo album). What is know about him peronally can be already found at List of Exo members. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 11:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of Exo members#Lay. There is no need for a separate article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note: I just noticed that the article was a redirect before and a new user restored it from the redirect. I think based on this it could be speedy delete (redirect) and the result posted on the talk page of List of Exo members, in case some fans try restoring the articles again, we would have reference. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 14:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Exo members which is where all the other members are redirected as well. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 16:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Letter (message). Guerillero | My Talk 05:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Informal letter (  | 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 looks like some kind of how-to guide. Vanjagenije ( talk) 10:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless totally rewritten and referenced. The topic of letter format/style could be the subject of a valid encyclopedic article (as long as it steered clear of overtly how-to content), letter writing is the subject of a lot of academic attention these days [19] [20] [21] [22], and Letter (message) could badly do with expansion. But this article is very far from an encyclopedic article. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 12:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• comment We have a business letter article which I would assume represents American practice and which very much as a how-to character. Mangoe ( talk) 14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note that this edit removed the AfD message, after which this edit redirected the page to Letter (message). Redirect to that article seems appropriate to me. Cnilep ( talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

The article does not resemble most other Wikipedia articles in its formatting. Should be deleted unless written as an encyclopedic entry with reputable sources cited. Carpalclip3 ( talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Letter (message). PaintedCarpet ( talk) 14:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 15:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Seems to be promotional in nature. Lacks reliable sources. Vanjagenije ( talk) 10:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb ( talk) 11:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I found a few non-english sources, but they seem to be minor blogs and the like. - Mr X 12:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 16:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

I came across this article while trying to find coverage for a film he created, Fatima. At first I looked at the article briefly and figured that due to the claims, that he would be notable and that I wouldn't really have to worry about finding sources. You can see the original state of the article here. Now what I quickly discovered while looking for sources is that this guy has a history of outright lying about his accomplishments per this newspaper. Supposedly he's not only worked as a model, singer, and director, but he's also on the boards for several big production companies and he's one of several people who have to OK films before they can even hit the streets or get made. That's just one of the things that he's asserted or that the article has asserted about him. I'd have just speedied this as a hoax, but the guy is real even if most of his claims apparently aren't and I'd like for a few people to verify this by looking for sources. There are only about three sources, which aren't enough to show notability. While searching for things, remember that the claims for Ali and his films should be taken with a grain of salt. Supposedly his film won several awards, was put through LionsGate, BBC was backing it, etc, but apparently all of those claims are false. The same person who reported the first claims was the same person who wrote the article saying that the guy was making everything up. I have a feeling that Ali himself has been editing the article, given the way some of the article was edited. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The claims for notability made prior to Tokyogirl79's cleanup are not verifiable (to put it mildly). Stripped of those claims, there isn't really a case for notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 16:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

I began removing poorly-sourced contentious material about this BLP, such as material cited to a warning letter from the FDA, a document from the SEC and a press release from the DA. After removing BLP violations, there were no sources left, and all I found in a Google News search was this blurb(my bad, this was an ad). Subject does not appear to have substantial coverage in independent sources. Prior AfDs appear to only barely have skid by on Keep and only because editors presumed it was well-sourced, when it actually only had primary sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment User:CorporateM has in the course of all his removals completely whitewashed an article on a man whose name appears on pretty much every blog tracking medical scams and quackery, these being his only claims to noteriety. I am not up on exactly which of these has gained our respect, if any, but it is a leadpipe cinch that the current state of the article cannot be retained, not because it is unsourced, but because it is a knowing misrepresentation. I would personally prefer to keep an article, but if we cannot come to an agreement as to which documentation of his misdeeds is acceptable, deletion would have to be preferred. Mangoe ( talk) 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" and WP:BLPREMOVE says to remove such content, even if it means violating the three-revert rule. WP:BLPSPS says to avoid self-published sources like blogs. Additionally our notability criteria requires that there be multiple, reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in depth for the article to remain. I cannot assess whether the article is an accurate representation of the BLP's reputation or conduct - I can only evaluate the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Maybe you cannot, but I can and do make such an assessment, regardless of what I may write in Wikipedia. The lecture on policy notwithstanding, the current version is patently misleading to anyone who does a Google search on this guy. I did not register an opinion as to whether the article should be deleted because I am unsure whether his notoriety can be sourced to our standards; however, I would strenuously object to retaining it as it currently stands. Mangoe ( talk) 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

We're in agreement then ;-) CorporateM ( Talk) 17:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I've voted the other way before on the article because the argument for deletion was weak. This is a better argument. I've research press on the guy and have found almost nothing; there is nothing that shows the person as notable. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 18:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Reviewed the contents of the AfDs plural. Reviewed the article itself. The only citation in the version I reviewed was being used to support a sentence with 2 claim elements - 1: that SU is unaccredited (which is in the citation) and 2: that the subject of this BLP helped found SU (but I cant find where the source mentions the subject of this BLP at all). I deleted the citation because it incompletely supported the text, particularly the element that might have been relevant to the BLP. As such, the citation was misleading. Which leaves the rest of the article as a rickety tickety donkey bridge, except there is no donkey and no bridge. FeatherPluma ( talk) 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per nom and other delete votes. Clearly not notable. —     Bill W.    ( Talk)  ( Contrib)  — 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: No evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 16:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable athlete; coverage is all superficial local stuff. Orange Mike | Talk 07:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article makes a rather specific claim of notability per WP:N in terms of his efforts to run a series of 52 marathons over a span of a year, and backs uo that claim of notability with a few dozen reliable and verifiable sources that include major newspapers and magazines, who were covering Rauschenberg and his efforts to achieve his goal. So many articles discussed at AfD make tenuous claims of notability and are kept with the argument that there may well be more sources available. This article far exceeds the standards of retention in Wikipedia in general and goes well beyond nearly all articles kept at AfD. Alansohn ( talk) 16:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC, is notable, and the coverage is not all "superficial" or local. Source examples include:

• Top This Resolution: A Marathon a Week. The Washington Post.
• Book Review & Interview: 'See Dane Run' by Dane Rauschenberg. The Oregonian.
• See Dane run
• Taking running to the extreme
• CORY MULL: Dane Rauschenberg takes ultradistance running to new level
• Students 'See Dane Run' (subscription required)
• Book Review: See Dane Run By Dane Rauschenberg (subscription required)
• Dane Rauschenberg to Serve as This Year's RBC Wealth Management Charity Chaser
• DJ Interviews Dane Rauschenberg

 – Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 16:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Solestruck (  | 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 WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 12:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails GNG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It's a company. It exists. It seems to be doing OK. Is it notable? I don't see that it is yet. Mabalu ( talk) 18:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to V._C._Andrews#The_Landry_series. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 18:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to V._C._Andrews#The_Landry_series. I can't find enough to really show that this individual book merits an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. That the British Library archives it didn't prove notability to me, and no other suggestion of it. It survived an AfD in 2006, but I think this may have been due to different standards then, rather than verified notability. Boleyn ( talk) 18:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:WEBSITE. Koala15 ( talk) 15:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can't find independent reliable coverage (there's some mentions online [23] [24] but that doesn't meet standards for establishing notability). Not on the same level as Find a Grave or even Walter Skold's Dead Poets Society of America (which has some press but no WP article yet). Previous AfD kept it on the basis the website is useful, which isn't a valid reason these days. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete There's no notability at all, and the 'Read our Wikipedia entry' on its front page adds insult to injury. It's a nice personal project, not the subject of an encyclopedia article. Shows how WP has changed in last 7 years. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

B.Care Medical Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn ( talk) 19:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't seem to meet GNG. Also did a quick search of "บี.แคร์ เมดิคอลเซ็นเตอร์" for Thai-language sources, didn't immediately seem to turn up much significant. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 09:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• delete as it stands looks like an advert, and hospitals are not inherently notable. LibStar ( talk) 12:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD ( talk) 16:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

2013 siege of the Pakistani embassy in Dhaka (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Event not notable enough. Small event of 50-60 protesters, no deaths, nobody got near the actual Embassy premises, no aftermath of the event (this is from the news sources). Ratibgreat ( talk) 02:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van( எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Evano1van( எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge to article on Pakistan-Bangladesh relations. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 00:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep The incident was widely covered in the media and was particularly notable in the context of worsening Bangladesh-Pakistan relations, which have become quite controversial since the death of Abdul Quader Molla. The event also recieved coverage among the governments and diplomats of both countries, so I would say this is notable. Mar4d ( talk) 14:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Notable as the incident was widely covered. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to OpenSolaris. Given the lack of sources, not much material seems to be available for a merge, but if necessary, the content can be retrieved from the article history ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

(Defunct) software which does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 23:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete I found a manual/book about the subject ([www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?paratrk=&isbn=9786135271140 ISBN: 6-13-527114-8]) but otherwise nothing to help support its notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The book is from Betascript Publishing, so probably just documentation. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge into OpenSolaris or Just enough operating system, unless that article should be deleted too. Seems like there's at least some discussions on this outside wikipedia. LionMans Account ( talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Where is the discussion outside Wikipedia? The only source in Just enough operating system, a VMWare blog [25] does not mention OpenSolaris JeOS, only other JeOSes (which weren't even called JeOSes by their makers at the time or now.) Someone not using his real name ( talk) 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge. It does not seem highly notable by itself and the content is short enough I believe merging is appropriate. 50.53.15.59 ( talk) 11:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Principal Saif-ud-din (  | 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 appears to be a remarkable but unfortunately not notable school principal. The article relies 100% on wiki-based sources which cannot be considered reliable even for a deceased person. Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Agree that I should have not published the article while I am still completing it and in the process linking to valid references. The subject was also not a school principal as you have commented but a professor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wamiq.bashir ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Inadequate sourcing. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC). reply
• Keep Highest administrative officer of a significant college. There's enough here to get started with. 'DGG (at NYPL)' ( talk) 18:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply