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. Keep. Especially due to http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Booking_the_Mafia.pdf Sancho 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

James Dubro

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

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

This article contains no references and it is unclear that the subject is notable. The bulk of content has been contributed by one user abookguy without any references. At the very least it constitutes unverified research, and since the username abookguy appears to also be James Dubro's handle on at least a few other websites, speculatively the edits may constitute original research. 1of42 ( talk) 23:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep, many news sources are readily available with a basic search, and there are references in the article itself. If not then it simply needs to be cleaned up. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 20:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Which news sources are those? I was unable to find more than a stub page from a Toronto newspaper listing book titles by the author. I have been unable to find any sources that seem to meet Wikipedia guidelines. As for the references, they lead nowhere that I can tell, thus this AfD. Yes, there are references written down, but that does not mean that they are legitimate references. I'm not an experienced Wikipedian so I don't know. 174.119.253.80 ( talk) 17:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC) (This comment was actually made by me - wasn't logged in. 1of42 ( talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)) reply

Follow the link at the top of this page for Google News hits, you need to use the custom range feature to pull up stories for years' past. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 20:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

That might have been true several weeks ago but it is not true now. Google news archive searching no longer exists. The news link gets a result "The search option you have selected is currently unavailable", with no results listed (other than the Wikipedia article itself) and no custom range feature. So rather than hiding behind vague instructions that you have obviously not tried yourself, which sources do you mean? — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, this is my issue. I managed to find (via Googling) the text from an article in the Toronto Star 13 years ago that mentions the article subject, but that doesn't seem enough to meet the notability guideline. Every other result from Google either appears to be related to the article subject's own websites/organizations, or is the sort of repeated uninformative links that don't meet any sort of criteria for being valid references. 1of42 ( talk) 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

What I've been doing is clicking - what i see - is the "advance search options", which then gives me several sorting sorts, one of which is time. The preset is for "anytime", however if you click on "custom time range" you can put a date range like 1/1/1959-12/12/2013. When I do that all sorts of articles pop for this guy. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 22:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment, I've added a few, there are still more in a Google Book search. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 22:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • So far there are ten sources that mention him, but none that provide evidence that he passes WP:GNG. Nine of the articles, "Mob violence sign that no one is in charge: Expert", "Fires kindle fears of feud", "Mourners pack church for Rizzuto funeral", "Rizzuto shooting weakens family's power: crime experts", "'No Surrender Crew' aptly named", "Police crack down on alleged Italian-Canadian Mafia in Europe", "Speedy justice for Papalia hitman", "Requiem pour un mafioso", and "Omicidio Cuntrera: è guerra di mafia. Liborio Sciascia, il guardaspalle morto con lui nell’agguato", merely have quotes by Dubro but nothing much about him or his books. The tenth source, "Media Advisory and Photo Opportunity - Arthur Ellis Award winners announced" is a press release (so it is not acceptable as a reliable source) and says only that he is a past winner of an award. What we need are profiles of Dubro's life, reviews of his books, stories directly about him getting an award, or other such sources that go into nontrivial detail about him or his works. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I see nothing in any of those sources that dispute what we have or cast any doubt on what the article states. In fact they cite him as an authority in his field. This article may have to pull together several dozen sources to cover every statement made, but that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Additionally he would be covered as well in every review of his books. And for that press release i find no qualms with accepting that as evidence he has won an award unless you are suggesting it's false in some way. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

But the issue is not just references, it is a combination of references and notability. My initial reaction was that I did not think the article subject was notable, which was compounded by a lack of references to substantiate that notability. We now have references, which means we need to assess notability. It is not clear to me that any of these sources passes muster with Wikipedia:GNG. Particularly, each article seems to fail the requirement that "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention". Each article only discusses Dubro himself in a passing way to give background to his quote about the actual article subject. The very most an article says about him is a couple of small paragraphs, again only in context of giving background to a quote of his. I really don't think that can be said to pass Wikipedia:GNG, despite the fact that we do now have references.

To maybe quote a more directly applicable part of the notability guidelines: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page"

The referenced material from verifiable independent sources would only provide material to write a couple of sentences or maybe a paragraph about Dubro, stating that he is a crime writer. It seems the notability guidelines explicitly address the situation here - yes, there are passing references to Dubro, but referenced, verifiable independent material does not support an article about him. The press release, for the record, simply doesn't qualify because press releases from an organization affiliated to the article subject are just not valid references. Dubro is clearly a fairly established member of the organization whose press release you cited, which means that it can't be used as a source - "For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]" 1of42 ( talk) 18:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The press release is independent of the subject. And all the other sources including some more from Google Books search each adding a sentence or two puts him past the GNG requirement. If those references weren't taking about the subject, or if fact stating things like "said James Dubro, a long-time crime writer, investigative journalist and expert in organized crime." I might agree. But they hold him up as a leader of sorts in his field. Have a look at [1] this] and see if you don't think that just maybe there are enough sources out there for a good article. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 19:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. I'm willing to change my mind if sources specifically about the subject or his works and covering the subject in nontrivial detail are found, but the ten detailed above are completely inadequate, and the five new ones added since I analyzed those ten are even worse: bare-url links, to Google book web pages, for books whose title and authorship does not make evident any connection to Dubro, with no page numbers listed for finding anything about Dubro within the books. Searching these web pages reveals that Dubro is mentioned only trivially in three of these books, that he is not mentioned at all in a fourth, and in a fifth it is revealed that one of his awards is a service award of a type that does not lend much notability to its subject. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • He is mentioned more than trivially but again, all the sources combined put him well over the GNG. Additionally I found an archived full length piece about him at William Armstrong Percy III's website: 1st page, 2nd page. I am hunting down to find out where this was originally published and who wrote it but does suggest we are missing the point this is a well-respected journalist and author. So we have a mystery full length article that proves he is covered non-trivially, and tons of sources dating back to the 1970s, that are on outdated media, as a lot of television coverage in the 1970s/1980s is. That's a systematic bias that he doesn't have a press agent, and isn't a shameless self-promoter. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 21:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per David Eppstein. -- Randykitty ( talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Notability is not temporary. This subject was publicly notable as a Canadian crime expert, enough to have headline recognizability as late as 2009 as evidenced here. The subject was notable for writing about crime, and notable for documentary films, and taken seriously enough to be considered worth some time from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding justice legislation. The nominator's rationale, "unverified research", is only an argument to remove or revise or source information within the article. This subject meets WP:AUTHOR as, at the barest minimum, they headed a trade group elected by professional peers, even if the other sources for notability are discounted. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That 2009 "article" confuses me. It has no author on the byline and reads like a paid advertorial-type piece. I don't know what impact that has but I question using it as a source. 1of42 ( talk) 19:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Using scare quotes, and suggesting it's a paid advetorial seems needlessly combative. You have zero ground to lob such accusations likely because Dubro doesn't need to buy articles. And no one has suggested using it as a source so perhaps you could avoid putting words in other editors' mouths. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 20:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I've found another full-length article about Dubro that should put this to rest. It was referenced in the first one, but I had overlooked it. It's from Saturday Night (magazine), March 1990. It is archived here page 19, page 20, page 21, page 23. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 21:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment, searching under "Jim Dubro" also yields more results. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article needs some cleanup (has some strange editor comments inlined), and that wall of sources in the first sentence should be pared down to the best ones. But there are sources to pass WP:GNG. -- GreenC 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep, only because the necessary cleanup isn't quite enough to put this into WP:TNT grounds. As far as I see it, the strange editor comments were all added here as citations to additional resources; it looks like we have sufficient reliable sources. First sentence is the biggest example of WP:BOMBARD that I can ever remember seeing. Nyttend ( talk) 15:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Dubro clearly passes WP:AUTHOR, having published several books with major publishing companies (Penguin, Macmillan), and being talked about in mainstream media for decades. Also, there was quite a lot of TV documentary work which, with the books, adds up to a "significant body of work". The shape of the article is irrelevant to determine notability, it can always be tagged for clean-up or wikifying. Kraxler ( talk) 15:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Although badly in need of cleanup, Sportsfan5000 has dug up enough to show this author passes the GNG. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 21 December 2013 (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 bus routes in London#400–499. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

London Buses route 414

London Buses route 414 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not demonstrate why this bus route is notable. Per WP:BUSOUTCOMES, we typically do not retain articles on individual bus routes if they aren't notable in their own right. This article relies on sources from the route's operator and a WP:SPS for its content, and online searches for other sources finds only blogs and other wikis. Imzadi 1979  → 23:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Could the page be redirected instead of being deleted? CourtneyBonnick ( talk) 08:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of bus routes in London#400–499. Not notable other than as a {{ R to list entry}}. See also other similar redirects. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per above. -- Admr Boltz 15:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep as article creator. There are three buses operating in London with the number 414. There is a book called "The Motorbus in London Country" which contains extended amounts of information about the Croydon bus which I have been meaning to check for ages. What clinched it for me was that TfL has used it as an example unprovoked. In my opinion, nothing could be gained from deletion. At the very least convert into a disambiguation page.-- Laun chba ller 12:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NOHARM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

How does that remark fall foul of that policy?-- Laun chba ller 00:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

That is an essay, not a policy. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The shortcut redirects to a section, so I didn't notice that template - in which case my point remains valid.-- Laun chba ller 07:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Mainly per Launchballer. There are many notable London bus routes and this one is the same. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 19:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. A plain, common bus route that is worthy of mentioning in a list, but not as a standalone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 15 December 2013 (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. without prejudice to recreation, assuming the subject meets notability criteria Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Jamal Slocombe

Jamal Slocombe (  | 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.Fails WP:MUSBIO . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete without prejudice to recreation. The one source in the article introduces Slocombe as an "[u]pcoming singer and songwriter". -- Whpq ( talk) 17:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can find that he was nominated for a People's Choice award, but I agree he fails WP:MUSBIO at present. - ManicSpider ( talk) 11:28, 17 December 2013 (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) John F. Lewis ( talk) 14:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Optimus UI

Optimus UI (  | 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 Android software. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose Basically its LG's android layout and despite not being elaborated on, it is still present into new devices so the only thing that should have been done here is that there should be a request via a template to add more sources and credible information than to immediately delete it.Besides the fact that LG is a notable manufacturer makes the Optimus UI also notable. JeromesandilanicoJSD ( talk) 02:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: WP:NOTINHERITED. This page only says that it exists and its on certain devices. It does not elaborate any further. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Give it a chance. Too soon to delete. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 06:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep I'm not seeing a qualifying WP:DEL-REASON. A simple web search yields plenty of resources offering more information on the features of this skin, comparison to other Android UI's, etc. The article could use some expansion, sure, but meets WP:NSOFT as far as I can tell. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:07, 17 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 01:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Miku Matsumoto

Miku Matsumoto (  | 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 MMA fighter ( WP:MMANOT) Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:NMMA because of 3 Shooto fights, Shooto is top tier. LiberatorLX ( talk) 12:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Actually Shooto is not top tier for female fighters--see WP:MMATIER. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails NMMA with no top tier fights. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Doesn't appear to have any top tier fights, so she fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa ( talk) 00:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree with previous comments--she doesn't meet NMMA. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (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. this is clear enough that there is sufficient consensus without a relist DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Helen Peller

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

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

Article is about a bassoonist without significant coverage in indepependent reliable sources. Zephyr Winds, the ensemble she is currently playing in was deleted via AFD. Whpq ( talk) 22:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails general notability guidelines and musician guidelines at this time. SarahStierch ( talk) 01:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete, unless someone can come up with appearances in books or academic journals or academic websites. Nyttend ( talk) 15:59, 19 December 2013 (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 Offshoring#Re-shoring. sufficient consensus for a redirect DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Reshoring

Reshoring (  | 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 neologism. Contested PROD. Article relies on a primary source to some sort of 'reshoring' web site. I suspect spam and cruft. Fiddle Faddle 22:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Offshoring#Re-shoring, where Re-shoring and Inshoring already redirect. -- BDD ( talk) 18:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per BDD. Quite a silly term, but now that we know that the offshoring article has content on it, that's not a good enough reason to pretend that we have nothing on this subject at all. Nyttend ( talk) 16:00, 19 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 05:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Erica Montoya

Erica Montoya (  | 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 MMA fighter ( WP:MMANOT) Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX ( talk) 12:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't meet NMMA and her BJJ success was as a blue belt--which doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 19:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not appear to have enough top tier MMA fights to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 15 December 2013 (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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Cat Zingano

Cat Zingano (  | 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 MMA fighter - on WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Cat won her UFC title eliminator fight against Miesha Tate, and will be fighting for the UFC Women's Bantamweight title at some point in the future. Do you propose we delete the article only to recreate it in a few months? Please stop wasting our time. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Any top contender for the championship of a major MMA organization is ipso facto a notable fighter, IMO. As Chris Troutman points out, Zingano has already booked her title fight, though it has been delayed due to injury. JudahH ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment She is entry level not top contender with only one of three fights in a top tier organization required to meet WP:MMANOT with no mention of when if ever there is going to be a next fight. At the very least WP:TOOSOON. Peter Rehse ( talk) 11:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:GNG, top fighter, was going to be TUF coach til she got injured. LiberatorLX ( talk) 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep — Per above and per WP:GNG. She's definitely a top contender. Poison Whiskey 19:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Top 10 ranked fighter and was scheduled to fight for a UFC championship. Drunk in Paris ( talk) 05:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Technically doesn't meet NMMA, but it looks inevitable--unless she never fights again. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 19:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep As above, passes WP:GNG, will be fighting for the championship of a major professional sports organization. Courier00 ( talk) 02:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:SIGCOV supersedes the MMA guideline in this case as does WP:ANYBIO. Mkdw ^talk 03:30, 15 December 2013 (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. ( WP:Non-admin closure) §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 03:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Swami_Nithyananda

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

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

1. Almost 100% of information in this article is fraudulent. The man runs a cult, disguised as a religious/spiritual organization. The US court found his organization guilty of fraud in 2012 - http://nithyananda-cult.blogspot.com/2012/07/verdict-guilty-nithyananda-swamis.html He has been accused of sexual assault - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-29/chennai/34163402_1_nithyananda-aarthi-rao-disciple And a child's organization is now looking into his self-licensed educational organization in India where cases or beating children with sticks are suspected to be taking place - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/367261/nithyananda-ashram-scanner-child-rights.html

2. If you look at the edits made to said Wikipedia article, you will see many instances by this self-styled godman's disciples to sneak promotional materials into the entry. They are repeatedly being deleted, but their organization is notorious for trying to fix the "guru's" damaged reputation with a flood of positive press releases they keep on creating.

E.g., look at the edits by Jaya malini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaya_malini , they are an attempt to remove as much subjective info about the cult as possible and to sneak in as much praise about the foundation as she can.

For example, take a look at the edit by Jaya malini on November. Her reason for the edit is "important confession in a well publicized magazine" . And what does she reference as proof? This (be prepared to laugh) - http://www.firstpost.com/india/nithyananda-says-he-is-beyond-gender-incapable-of-alleged-sexual-acts-355337.html

There is so much more that is wrong with this organization. However, it still continues to operate. The worst part is that Google now takes information from Wikipedia and shows it up on the front page with a big image this person doesn't deserve.

A group of people (from the US) whose lives were ruined by this fraudulent organization started this website http://nithyananda-cult.blogspot.com/, but there are tons of others. AlexandraFiesGT888 ( talk) 21:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It is crazy to point to a random blog as evidence of fraud. If you look at these documents http://www.scribd.com/doc/109327720/Aarthi-Rao-Paramahamsa-Nithyananda-Medical-Report-English that have been issued by the US court of Michigan and accepted by the high court in Bangalore as evidence in this case you can see that the person accusing him of rape Arti Rao is a carrier of highly contagious STDs that she has been having for more than 10 years and that his medical records don't show these. Also the person who charged Nithyananda of homoseual abuse is himself serving 5 years imprisonment in a Washington state prison for Child abuse which he was trying to escape from using this case. It is easy in India to place charges on anyone. Even Rahul Gandhi - has a charge against him. But one doesn't being his biography saying the "rape-accused politician". One must understand that as per Indian law a person is considered innocent unless convicted by a court. Creating a blog with accusations is not considered a conviction. Jayendra Saraswathi - the head of another ancient mutt in India - was similarly falsely charged of murder 10 years ago and recently acquitted of all charges. Wikipedia must take care and keep this principle of the Indian law in mind when writing these articles and avoid being abusive based on random charges. Unfortunately the current article reeks of media trial - which is becoming so common today in India - and wikiepdia doesn't seem to have used any judgement to show this and instead uses these very media as evidence instead of relying on the more reliable court accepted documents.. Acnaren ( talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, Acnaren. I just studied your Wikipedia talk page. It looks like another user has already warned against vandalizing Wikipedia articles, to be more specific, against deleting any criticism other people add to the entry about Swami Nithyananda. Your bias is obvious. If you were paying attention, you would see that I reference a number of sources in the nomination, not just a "random blog". It's a blog by people who had been ripped-off by Nithyananda in the past. Your point of view on the Aarathi Rao rape case so echoes what the accused number 1 have had to say. For anyone interested to know more about what happened to this video, here is a relevant link to an interview made by a news channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdxrDH0iKxQ By the way, perhaps I should also mention that all the books Nithyanada claims he has "authored" were written by his ex marketing manager, Lenin Karuppan, (according to what Lenin said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8v76pIKXA). Why is Lenin his ex manager? Because he is the one who exposed the fraudulent organization. AlexandraFiesGT888 ( talk)

Snow Keep Invalid nomination, as nominator's only argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• With all respect, I doubt you have followed the links provided together with my arguments. Otherwise, you wouldn't say I'm doing it "just because I don't like it". AlexandraFiesGT888 ( talk)
• Keep The nomination itself contains more than enough evidence to establish notability. If the article is poorly written, that's not an AfD issue. De Guerre ( talk) 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep As per Jinkinson and De Guerre and even through the subject is a controversial religious figure clearly passes WP:GNG and is clearly Verifiable. Very wide coverage about him ,his organization and religious activities. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to delete. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep I agree with the above comments regarding notability. So the article should be there. But I would also suggest that the article be semi-protected in order to prevent continued self-promotion and vandalism. - Subh83 ( talk | contribs) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• If the article could at least be semi-protected, that would be at least something. I'd urge editors to verify any links provided as "evidence". You will be likely to find that not a single respectable edition in India or abroad has ever written anything positive about Nithyananda. The only positive freedback one finds about this person on the Internet has been created by his followers. Regards. AlexandraFiesGT888 ( talk)
• Keep The deletion nomination is one that should lead to the article being nominated for protection, not deletion. Neonchameleon ( talk) 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Yes, ACNaren and I are indeed volunteers with Nithyananda Mission and represent a thought that should be represented. Deletion of this post would be unfairly denying us of this forum. Let the thought accommodation persist following the traditions of Wikipedia. 01:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Jaya Malini.

Jaya Malini, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion (read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum and Wikipedia:PROMOTION). It is an encyclopedia containing facts, and hence it deserves to have article on notable people, both famous and infamous (that later in this case in my opinion). For example, it also has an article on the serial killer Ted Bundy. Also, since you are directly related to the person/organization, you should read the guideline on conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. - Subh83 ( talk | contribs) 15:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3, hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ludwig Heidler

Ludwig Heidler (  | 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 believe this article to be a hoax for several reasons. First, there is absolutely no trace of a Ludwig Heidler ever existing in online or offline sources. Secondly, the article claims that he received the Knights Cross with Oak Leaves. This was a highly prestigious honour, which the Nazis only granted for exceptional acts of bravery. In total, only 882 people out of millions of Germans serving in World War 2 were granted that honour. Given how scarce it was, the people who received it are well documented and no Ludwig Heidler appears among the List_of_Knight's_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_with_Oak_Leaves_recipients_(1942) or List_of_Knight's_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_with_Oak_Leaves_recipients_(1943). Finally there is absolutely no source showing that the supposed battle in the village of Andorf actually took place. The Anschluss took place without any fighting and an event where most of an SS unit of 240 men was wiped out and 38 locals were killed certainly would have been documented. Valenciano ( talk) 21:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment It looks as if they've caught on over at the Danish Wikipedia as well: [2] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I did inform them over there. Valenciano ( talk) 21:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I can find no evidence of this man's having existed (including if his name was actually Hiedler as in the lede), and neither the Frankfurt Zeitschrift von Geschichte (spelling error corrected, and I also searched with für instead of von, and with Frankfurter) nor the memoirs of Konrad Edelbach appear to exist. So I reluctantly agree with the nominator that this is a hoax. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment The Danish article has been nominated for deletion as well. User:Kong amdi I has made at least one (other) hoax article on Danish Wikipedia. Pugilist ( talk) 22:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC) The Danish article has been deleted. The contributions from the user has been examined and most of it was misinformation and several hoaxes. Pugilist ( talk) 00:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I've been meaning to nominate this one myself for a while. None of the alleged sources seem to exist in the first place, let alone support the claims in the article. Hqb ( talk) 16:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete, hoax apparently created by multiple hoaxer. Not very plausible fake German sources, too. — Kusma ( t· c) 21:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete as not making a credible claim of importance/promotional. Next time, just nominate for speedy deletion. Drmies ( talk) 18:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

All Things Nice

All Things Nice (  | 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 article is not notable by itself. No reliable sources are found. Sounds more like a advert and a conflict of interest including paid editing. Epicgenius ( talk) 20:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Subject fails WP:CORP; sole source is an industry one. Mini apolis 00:22, 11 December 2013 (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Scubaocity Dive Shop Management System

Scubaocity Dive Shop Management System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a web-based software product. Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NSOFTWARE. May be eligible for A7 speedy deletion. - Mr X 20:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search reveals press releases, forum posts, and advertising, but no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 07:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 notice applied  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 22:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Leidenfrost phenomenon and surface tension

Leidenfrost phenomenon and surface tension (  | 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 quite a duplicate of Leidenfrost effect, but I don't think it adds much on the topic. Could be merged if there is useful information. clpo13_{( talk)} 19:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Droptek

Droptek (  | 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 individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. References fail to support notability. reddogsix ( talk) 05:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The article Droptek should not be deleted, as Droptek is a notable dubstep producer. The article was not finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealBeelzebeard ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON, the only reliable source with more than a passing mention I found was this short listing. WP:MUSICBIO does not appear to provide a harbor for this article yet, either. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 9 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, postdlf ( talk) 19:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination and Eggishorn. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 07:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Patrick Carr

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

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

Delete as non-notable under WP:VICTIM; cannot derive notability simply and/or solely by dint of victimhood, without any other reason for purported notability. Quis separabit? 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This is a one-event biography, but Patrick Carr is a plausible search term for the Boston Massacre. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Redirect to Boston Massacre. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:14, 4 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, postdlf ( talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Only merge salient info before redirect based on non-notability. Quis separabit? 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Does that mean you're no longer in favour of deletion? -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep -- There are two notable aspects: the admission of deathbed statemetns as evidence (allegedly a legal precedent) and marginal involvement in an important historic event. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - peter Peterkingirons reasoning and the two factual important events.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Things like WP:VICTIM are written for situations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan C. Clark. He was one of few people involved in a notable historic event, 200 years before the Internet existed — (1) this is definitely the kind of subject that encyclopedias traditionally cover, and (2) the lack of Internet sources is not particularly relevant. Only if we searched something like Early American Imprints without success should we declare that he doesn't have substantial coverage. Nyttend ( talk) 16:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don;t think WP:VICTIM applies here--it's more of a limitation on current events, or --along with NOT MEMORIAL--where there are a very large number of victims of a disaster. This is an exceptionally famous historic event, and it's reasonable that the individuals involved are appropriate topics for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Selective merge to Boston Massacre per WP:BIO1E. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 07:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to Boston Massacre - while contribution to trial is of note, the individual as a whole does not appear to be so. Now, if there was more referencing, it might be shown that they pass GNG. Actually now I look at business around their testimony, there is nothing given to back up the claim that it is "is one of the earliest recorded uses of the dying declaration exception". GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Carr's dying declaration as relayed in Rex v. Weems et al has been cited by, for example, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as the most prominent exception to the common law prohibition on hearsay evidence. So Carr is a plausible search term for this important legal concept, and Carr himself clearly passes the GNG, being covered in multiple reliable sources. WP:VICTIM is inapt for a case over two hundred years old. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 21 December 2013 (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 Richard Bandler. -- BDD ( talk) 18:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Corine Christensen

Corine Christensen (  | 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:VICTIM. just another murder LibStar ( talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence that this unfortunate case had any lasting impact or significance as required for WP:CRIME. The person herself fails WP:BIO since she is not notable for anything except the circumstances of her death. (Which is why this article should have been titled Murder of Corine Christensen.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

On second thought, redirect to Richard Bandler, where this case is already summarized adequately.-- MelanieN ( talk) 18:16, 4 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, postdlf ( talk) 18:58, 10 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 05:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Felipe Enomoto

Felipe Enomoto (  | 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 MMA fighter, no top tier fights with only 1 in 4 wins in a second tier orgnaization. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX ( talk) 12:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails NMMA. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 19:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not appear to have enough top tier MMA fights to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 03:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:MMA. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 19:32, 16 December 2013 (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. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 07:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Diana Falzone

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

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

Continuous beating back of this article from its blatantly promotional origins is systematically depriving it of any sources. A minor personage given space at a few major media outlets, but as far as sourcing is concerned the fact that she blogs for Fox etc. is about all I can find any sourcing for, except for some National Enquirer-grade celebrity coverage. It's perhaps possible that she might barely pass some notability standard but essnetially none of what's in the article can be reliably sourced beyond the bare fact of her employment. Mangoe ( talk) 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Seems to be sourced only by facebook and youtube and article shows no evidence of notability.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 18:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete, unless someone should come up with reliable coverage, ideally dead-tree. Nyttend ( talk) 16:12, 19 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Qube Base

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

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

Article about an energy drink that doesn't show any notability. Unreferenced to reliable independent sources. Possible promotional intent, as article was created twice under different titles. Peridon ( talk) 10:32, 10 December 2013 (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/2013 December 10. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Human comment: I followed the Twinkle procedure but TW got itself in a mess. Peridon ( talk) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete I am unable to find any evidence through a Google search that this range of drinks have made any impact aside from the company's own promotional efforts. I hope they could justify the claim on their website to be the world's fastest growing energy drink should anybody care to complain to the ASA, but I would wish to see clear evidence of notability before accepting that any article about this company's products or indeed the company itself should appear in WP. There is such a thing as trying too hard. -- AJHingston ( talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Appears to be vanity piece, no establishment of notability. Fails WP:GNG.-- Rollins83 ( talk) 21:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• I can't find any secondary sources about this company or their products on the Internet using a Google search. Delete, as not encyclopedically notable, unless such material is produced. -- hydrox ( talk) 15:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete no claims of notability, no sources. Alex ^{discussion ★} 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete no sources or anything stating why this subject should have a page on Wikipedia Verdict78 ( talk) 09:41, 13 December 2013 (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 speedily deleted by User:Jni per CSD G4. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Jitendra ravia

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

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

Declined PROD: Jitendra Ravia has been twice deleted ( AFD), there is an old AfC which was blanked. Article creator User:Jravia would appear to be the subject. Has tried to insert name into List of Indian journalists. No independent refs. Chris857 ( talk) 16:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• I speedy deleted this as re-created content that was deleted per deletion discussion. Article was sufficiently similar to earlier iteration. Also blocked the user for a short time for repeatedly obstructing the deletion process. Multiple attempts to create vanity autobiographies distributed over many months should qualify for a ban in my opinion. Leaving this page open for short while in case someone wants to comment. jni ( talk) 17:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • And he created this copy with miscapitalized title deliberately to avoid salting. jni ( talk) 17:57, 10 December 2013 (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 speedily deleted by User:Alexf per CSD A11 (obviously invented). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

IRKPMWL

IRKPMWL (  | 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 reliable sources found; seems a bit strange to me and I feel it's made up by the author himself. No notability, fails WP:GNG. Ethically ^{( Yours)} 16:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Straightforward example of a Caesar cipher. Author of page seems to think this is an original idea, which it isn't. Non-notable name for something already described on Wikipedia. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 16:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete: Caesar cipher (I think rot13 might be the only one with a name). The example (at bottom) deciphers to "HELLO AND WELCOME TO ENGLISH", and the name is simply ENGLISH in this particular cipher. Given the clue, it might be some minor school prank. Chris857 ( talk) 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per CSD A11 Samwalton9 ( talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 03:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Adhyayam Ondru

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

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

Unconfirmed film, with statements contradicting their sources. ---- Kailash29792 ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as WP:CRYSTAL Sources are minimal (last one is false) and contradictory Arjayay ( talk) 11:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete G5 as an article created by the now blocked sockpuppet of a blocked puppetmaster. Fiddle Faddle 01:04, 12 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj

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

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

100% self promotion, even though this page has been around for over 7-8 years, still, not even 5000 web pages contains any name like "Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj" neither there's even a single news related to this organization which is only limited with it's main website for references. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete There seems to be a book by that name which I think was published by them (it's POD). But nothing much other than Wikipedia and their own website. Neonchameleon ( talk) 21:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete with possible WP:HEY. De Guerre ( talk) 00:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Negligible information is available on the subject. But it's founder Ramendra Nath does get good hits. He has published many books and he is many times introduced as founder of this society. Hence redirect to Ramendra Nath. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ramendra Nath is not relevant either, he got hits only because his views were posted in many of the wiki pages.. Other than that he hasn't been a news or any notable either. His page can be contested for deletion as well. Bladesmulti ( talk) 10:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:05, 12 December 2013 (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. IronGargoyle ( talk · contribs) deleted page (Speedy deleted, blanked or requested by creator.) ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dgheim number

Dgheim number (  | 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, no references outside a paper by Dgheim in the International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow. We should only have an article on this once it has been in use by independent authors in reliable sources, not as soon as it is proposed by its eponymous scientist. Fram ( talk) 14:40, 10 December 2013 (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. ( non-admin closure) Ethically ^{( Yours)} 16:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Aerican Empire

Aerican Empire (  | 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 a notable nation/micronation. This is a self-aggrandizing article about an insignificant topic. Sources ≠ notability. ArticleForDeletion ( talk) 14:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)— User:ArticleForDeletion ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep I have herd of aerican empire and there are enough independent sources to prove notability.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 14:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Should I delsort this under fictional elements? Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep and report the nominator to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for violation of a username policy. Epicgenius ( talk) 14:47, 10 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Kerry Sayers

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

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

Creating deletion discussion for Kerry Sayers:

• Delete -- Not sure if this person is notable enough to warrant her own Wikipedia entry. No notable achievements or awards are listed; no notable associations or coverage of notable events are listed; no notable interviews or other job related activities are listed. Entry just reads like a summary of her CV. Improvements requested in March 2013, but no changes or additions have been made since then. Only one local media related blog is cited as a source. Does not appear to be anything but a entry about some local sportscaster. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The only source given is nothing more than a 3-line "birth announcement" for Ms. Sayer's daughter in a blog piece about numerous other Chicagoland media personalities. Not sure how having a daughter makes her notable (at least by Wikipedia standards). Ms. Sayers may indeed be a fine sportscaster and fine person, but nothing posted on her page so far establishes notability and distinguishes her in any way from any other sportscaster/radio personality either locally, nationally, or internationally. Are being on local TV and radio as well as having a daughter really good enough reasons to be given your own Wikipedia page? Furthermore, checked the View History of her page in order to find the creator and inform them that the page has been proposed for deletion. It appears that this is the 2nd time this page as been proposed for deletion. No major improvements have been made to the page since then and the page creator does not appear to be active on Wikipedia any longer. So, unless this article is dramatically improved and more information added, it should be deleted. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 14:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete this article only has one primary source and shows no proof of notability.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Article only cites a single source that isn't sufficient to meet reliable sourcing rules, and even that source only verifies the birth of her daughter and fails to really demonstrate the notability, to an international audience, of her career. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:41, 11 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Nintendo On

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

(Find video game sources:  "Nintendo On" –  news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

All sources are primary (the video itself, an interview with the author, some soundtrack album) or not considered reliable; I cannot find significant coverage of this hoax and don't think it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Perhaps it could warrant a line or two at Wii? ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Non-notable hoax. Not sure it created the splash it claims to have. I can't find any coverage either. (Though its hard to do a search with 2 words that would be so commonly found together.) Fails the WP:GNG unless someone else can find some better coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I only see the semi-secondary 1UP piece (already in article) and non-in-depth 99lives piece, and nothing more except primary (by video creater) or unreliable pieces (forums and boards). Just to be clear, an article about a hoax is okay, the argument here is that it doesn't pass GNG or WP:WEB. I don't think any content belongs in Wii or anything Nintendo-related, but may be in a list of (sourced) hoaxes if such were to exist. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 16:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• I agree on all accounts. The problem is the lack of notability, not that it was a hoax. I also agree that it probably doesn't belong anywhere else unless there were some sort "list of hoaxes" article that didn't require the items to have their own article as part of the inclusion criteria, (which is sometimes the case in list articles that could potentially be so massive.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This cute toaster lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. The only meaningful coverage was the 2005 1UP feature. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future.  czar  ♔ 19:06, 15 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Darwinbots

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

(Find video game sources:  "Darwinbots" –  news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable program, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The subject of this article appears to have no reliably sourced coverage on the web of any kind; certainly not the in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources needed to meet the guidelines. In fact, the results from a Google search are mainly restricted to download sites, primary sources, or blogs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Oh, and the previous AfD is highly unconvincing; nothing in that would satisfy notability guidelines in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It appears to just be another game from Windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finealt ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That is not a reason to delete, because every Windows game is just another game for Windows. You have to primarily address the general notability guidelines. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The ScienceBoard review appears good though not too in-depth and the source looks solid; the submitter has relevant field credentials and over 460 site posts and it appears all articles are editor approved before being published. The Libero newspaper piece looks like a machine translation from one of their review columns perhaps, but the content isn't very in-depth. If there were some 4 sources like this, I would consider GNG passed, but I don't think just 2 satisfy in-depth criteria and thus presumed notability. Only other substantial search hits are either primary, generic descriptions or forum posts and discussions. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There are not enough sources for an article. There's the Science Advisory Board, which is more than minor, but short. I didn't find anything else I'd call significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future.  czar  ♔ 18:58, 15 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Project Heart and Soul

Project Heart and Soul (  | 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:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG right now. Article title is apparently a working title, article itself hasn't got a single third-party source (and from what I gather from googling, there isn't any substantial information to be found yet either). Most google results just show a list of 'confirmed games for PS4'. I would've merged this into the article of the developer if it existed, but alas, there isn't one. Soetermans. T / C 11:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Can't see any substantial independent coverage (article is sourced only to developer). Very vague; obvious case of WP:CRYSTAL since as yet almost nothing about this is pinned down, and it's likely to change substantially before release, whatever name it's actually released under, whenever that happens, if it happens. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree with Soetermans id fails bolth wp:toosoon and wp:gng.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 13:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and only sources are vague and promotional, no chance of passing WP:GNG with anything in-depth. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 13:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As per above. The title isn't even official yet. Appears to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Finealt ( talk) 13:55, 10 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

List of people from Thall

List of people from Thall (  | 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 list does not contain a single link to other Wikipedia article. The only blue links in the list are links do disambiguation pages. Vanjagenije ( talk) 11:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article isn't useful as a navigation page or as an information page. is not sourced and have almost no blue links.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 13:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. Even using "what links here" from Thall, all I found was one notable subject who died in Thall. Even if more notable people from Thall are uncovered during the course of this AFD, it's unlikely those would be so numerous that they couldn't simply be listed directly in Thall. postdlf ( talk) 17:08, 10 December 2013 (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. Apparently an autobiography (twice speedily deleted), previously declined at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Puja Agarwal. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Puja Agarwal

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Furthermore, there is no reliable sources on the subject.

Note to closing admin: Page made by person with a possible conflict of interest and that a submission to article for creation for this article had been declined. Extremepro ( talk) 11:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Extremepro ( talk) 11:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extremepro ( talk) 11:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Extremepro ( talk) 11:46, 10 December 2013 (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/2013 December 10. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:HEY is possible here and if so I'll change my vote. But googling for Puja Agarwal gets me facebook and linked in, and googling for Puja Agawarl Bolywood gets me Kajal Agarwal (both bolded so there may be a translation issue). The account User:Puja Agarwal14 not just appears to share a name with the page under discussion, but has most of the contents of that page on her user talk page. Neonchameleon ( talk) 13:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails general notability guideline. I did both searches User:Neonchameleon suggested struggled to find multiple reliable secondary sources. SarahStierch ( talk) 01:09, 19 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

J-M Salo

J-M Salo (  | 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 musician. Unable to find any independent reliable sources covering him. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. Valenciano ( talk) 10:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. There are no reliable sources to prove notability. Only sources cited are primary sources. Vanjagenije ( talk) 12:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article has no reliable sources and shows nothing to prove notability.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 13:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete wp:A7, by User:Deb ( non-admin closure). Chris857 ( talk) 14:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Engenius Europe

Engenius Europe (  | 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 sign of notability. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 10:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete I thought it looked like a case of WP:CSD#G11, but long as we're here. Dloh cierekim 10:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment you'll get better search results searching for engenius wifi. Dloh cierekim 10:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment I removed promo content and added link. The article might need rename. Dloh cierekim 10:46, 10 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Krishna A. Gosavi

Krishna A. Gosavi (  | 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 a civil engineer, who dabbled in some amateur theology/philosophy and (self-?)published one book on the latter subject and a blog. I cannot find any obituaries, which for me would be the key indicator. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 10:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete No indication of notability. I have cleaned up the article a bit, correcting language and removing some copyvio. -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:44, 10 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mitch Grayson

Mitch Grayson (  | 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 article; person no longer works at ABC; no longer notable (if he ever was) Slac speak up! 08:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment wp:NTEMP Doesn't appear notable but the no longer notable argument is not a thing. Also there's no deletion flag on the page. Neonchameleon ( talk) 13:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete article shows no evidence of notability and the article relies only on primary sources.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 13:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Indeed, notability is not temporary; if a person was ever notable enough to get onto Wikipedia then they stay notable enough in perpetuity regardless of whether they stay in the public eye or fade in prominence later on. That said, this article doesn't particularly demonstrate that he was ever notable enough in the first place; its only sources are articles by him, not about him, and those don't count as reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Delete, though of course if somebody ever manages to dig up sources about him to start a new article with things might be different. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 11 December 2013 (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.  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sydney Uni Lions

Sydney Uni Lions (  | 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 sports team. Fails WP:GNG as the team has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack ( talk) 07:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment One of the more promotional articles I've seen here in a while. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm finding no news on this topic whatsoever. Appears to be promotional. Is this a club team or a university team or a "university club team" ?? But even in the face of those questions I'm finding no references. Perhaps offline sources may shed some light, but until then I see no notability measure for this article to pass.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I've turned up one (and only one) newspaper source so far: "Sydney Uni Lions want to play at Belmore Sports Ground", Canterbury-Bankstown Express, September 23, 2013. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (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. Fails WP:GNG (lacking substantive coverage in reliable sources), and WP:ENT (significant roles in multiple notable television shows) Sancho 17:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Anushka Sen

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

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

No indication of detailed coverage needed per WP:GNG; nothing to indicate any extensive career or awards to show notability per WP:NACTOR John from Idegon ( talk) 07:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep I admit that this is a borderline case but I would say 'keep' as she played in multiple notable TV shows aired on multiple notable Indian TV channels. The article lists sources confirming that. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 07:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 07:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Keep on weight of roles. You'll find most actors don't have detailed bio info available...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

where is the evidence about the weight of the roles? these are mostly minor or very minor roles-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Where is the evidence that they are minor or very minor roles? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 06:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

the burden of evidence is on those claiming notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

We link to tellychakkar in 373 articles, they have a large fan base on facebook and editorial team. Of course, they are not The New York Times, but a website specialized on entertaiment in India. Why do you think they are not acceptable? Where did you read they don't have a reputation for fact checking or editorial oversight? -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 06:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

that there have been a lot of spammy "references" sneeked into Wikipedia is not really valid. Nor is the fact that they have a large fan base. And while they may have an "editorial team" ; as seen in that same "about us" page, they pitch themselves first and foremost as a promotional partner, secondly as a gossip site, and no where as a "fact checking objective news" provider. Where have you read that they are highly focused on fact checking and accuracy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 07:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Tellychakkar.com is WP:RS. And the roles are notable enough to have the subject to be covered independently as a article piece with the name of subject in the title by these RSs. Visit Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TellyChakkar.com. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 07:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Tellychakkar.com About us: "[ http://www.tellychakkar.com/about-us India's most widely read online Media, Advertising, Marketing & Satellite Television resource. Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. " - Their primary business is promotion. Their second claim "The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips" Their focus is hardly "reliability" and as a primarily marketing and promotional service, they can hardly be considered acceptable for establishing notability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Were the articles used [3] [4] as source gossipy? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

for establishing notability, which is what we are here for, what matters is that Tellychakkar.com identifies itself first as a promotional partner. (and to your original question about gossipy "However, we have come across more exclusive dope to share with our readers." - the answer is "yes")-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The quoted sentence "...providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution" refers to the website http://www.indiantelevision.com/, but it looks that TellyChakkar is a part of it. Do you think that Anushka's parents/managers paid to TellyChakkar to write articles about her? I still think it is better for our readers to find an information about her roles in notable TV shows than to find nothing. But it is just my opinion. I accept your point. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 07:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I dont think they are a reliable source for anything remotely controversial or contested. And specifically related to this discussion, as part of the "360 degree media service and marketing solution" it is obvious they include promotion on their tellychakkar website. and so nothing from tellychakkar can be considered as part of the "significant coverage by independent sources" portion of WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete no significant coverage, a few mere mentions. I think it is WP:TOOSOON. SarahStierch ( talk) 01:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete as lacking substantive coverage in reliable sources. Searches show that sources are either substantive or reliable, but not both. Since she is still young, there is no harm in waiting until she generates more coverage. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete because the article currently has one source, so I can't see how it passes WP:GNG as currently constructed. Seems like WP:TOOSOON as previously stated by SarahStierch, and TRPoD's point make perfect sense in the above discussion. GRUcrule ( talk) 14:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 22:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Grady Hall

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

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

Biographical article for a seemingly non-notable director. References consist mostly of mere mentions of his involvement with various projects. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. - Mr X 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete No assertion of notability in the article, fails WP:FILMMAKER, and I confirm that the sources cited are passing mentions and not articles written about this person. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC) See below. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 22 November 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, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:11, 28 November 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, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:12, 5 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) 06:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• I'm reopening and relisting for one more week per a request on my talk page. Mark Arsten ( talk) 06:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Clearly passes WP:ANYBIO number 1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." That alone passes the requirements. Just check the list of notable awards listed in his article now. Dream Focus 11:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 12:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• delete neither of the sources about the video award even mention Grady hall. So we can't verify this achievement. There are zero sources for other awards. Thus fails WP:ANYBIO. LibStar ( talk) 15:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  You can easily find verification for the awards he has won. The link to the MTV site shows he won the award for "Best Visual Effects". [5] How did you find your way here? Upset at me for commenting just now at [6] most likely. Dream Focus 15:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I participate in a wide variety of AfDs, suggest you desist from personal attacks. See WP:NPA as in your last edit summary. LibStar ( talk) 15:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

And you just happen to find yourself here immediately after I commented in a deletion review about you. Uh huh. Dream Focus 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Searching D&AD's official website for Grady Hall and the award he won, shows results [7] [8] but requires you to sign up to see them. Ample media coverage easily found and already referenced in the article for the MTV award he won. PromaxBDA's website requites digging through a lot of articles to find anything, it not allowing you to search straight for the award winners there. I'll look through the rest and see if I can reference to the official websites or elsewhere the information is confirmed. Dream Focus 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks and insults are never justified. LibStar ( talk) 15:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• It is not a personal attack to point out to any closing administrator that your argument was based on you trying to get even with me for criticizing you in a deletion review. [9] Honestly now, the MTV movie award he won is clearly mentioned in the article already. Do you sincerely doubt he won the other awards listed? Dream Focus 15:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

this edit summary is clearly a personal attack, "immature and ridiculous". LibStar ( talk) 15:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• No, that is a statement of the fact. You are so immature you followed me here just to get even with someone who upset you by criticizing you, then made a ridiculous and incorrect statement. Dream Focus 15:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The fact that you first pretend there is no personal attack then try to dig yourself out as calling it a statement of fact , says it all, WP:KETTLE. LibStar ( talk) 15:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

You know you followed me here, I know you did, and I think anyone who has the displeasure of having to deal with you before will realize that instantly also. Nothing you say will change that. Hopefully the closing administrator will take that into account, and ignore your vote. Dream Focus 15:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

And any admin will see you clearly made a personal attack . WP:KETTLE. I say. LibStar ( talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Plenty of awards and references to satisfy WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Yup, do a bit of research and you'll find some interviews in reliable secondary sources, and winning that MTV award has surely paid off - he directed the latest Katy Perry video. SarahStierch ( talk) 01:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Motion Theory (company), per WP:BASIC. I'm unconvinced by the coverage I've seen in the sources. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 08:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  The awards went to him, not to his company. Just like a film director would get awards, not the company he was working for when he directed the notable projects. Dream Focus 14:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, but that still doesn't confer notability. If the subject isn't notable, redirection is an option. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 14:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It does in fact confer notability. WP:NOTABILITY states A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. That box includes the notability guideline for people. On that guideline page at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography it clearly states that winning notable awards makes you notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It says The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, and he has won multiple ones. Dream Focus 16:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

OK, but that also states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." IME the sources should directly address the subject in sufficient depth to provide foundations for a viable encyclopedic article. I'm not sure this is the case here. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 08:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I think its a "viable encyclopedic article" right now. I just added three references to interviews where he talked a lot about his work. [10] [11] [12] Dream Focus 19:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment There is new information here and this person is mentioned a lot. Could someone please point out the 2 best sources used to pass WP:N for this article? I am not seeing something which obviously meets inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  As I pointed out above [13], WP:Notability says you need to pass the GNG or a subject specific guideline such as Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography where it clearly states that winning notable awards makes you notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. He has won many awards for his works. He also gets interviews such as the one at [14]. Dream Focus 21:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Some of the notability claims being made are dubious and this is not a well-presented article. However, the interview you are presenting and the MTV award constitute fulfillment of WP:CREATIVE, "The person's work ... has won significant critical attention". The article is not well documenting this attention and is documenting a lot of content which should be deleted for failing WP:V. I support keeping this article but if anyone wished to deleted all unsourced or poorly sourced content - which is most of the article except for the MTV award - then I think the article would be improved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Alison Tyler (actress)

Alison Tyler (actress) (  | 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 really hate to do this because I love Alison Tyler, but she fails WP:PORNBIO because she has never been nominated for anything. I declined the BLPPROD myself because there is a source (albeit IMDb, but...). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Actually, after further inspection (and this pains me even more), the closing admin might even want to salt this because the creator created this article three times already (and judging from his/her talk page, s/he might not have a grasp of what Wikipedia is all about). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Notability assertion just barely clears A7. Lacks nontrivial reliable source coverage to pass GNG. Fails PORNBIO without awards or nominations. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete but do not salt. The problem is a general one with the article creator (25 or so speedy deletions mentioned on their talk page, including 6 copyvios since late November - and no evidence they've contributed to any talk pages). I've already taken them to WP:ANI and we can leave them to deal with any article protection. Neonchameleon ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Makes no case for notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per reasons outlined above. WP:SNOW Finnegas ( talk) 20:52, 11 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Stephen M. Coleman

Stephen M. Coleman (  | 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 do not see notability here. the refs are either PR, or minor notices, or his own articles. Previously accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Effectively a CV for a man with a firm, supported only by routine trade coverage. No evidence of biographical notability. AllyD ( talk) 07:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - wealth does not confer notability. There's no real allegation of notability. He seems to be a successful business person, but they are run of the mill. Sorry to be rude, but I don't see anything special about this person. Am I missing something? Bearian ( talk) 16:56, 18 December 2013 (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. Please come over to my talk page if anyone wants to userfy the article to work on and I'll happily undelete it for you. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Arnold Motor Supply

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

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

despite the documentation, this article is so promotional and so much devted to praising even the trivia, that it should be deleted and started over. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete or Incubate. I agree with DGG. It's focused too much on trivia and promotion. The sources seem to exist to support an article, but this one is not acceptable. It reads like a PR guy wrote it for the corporation. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Userfy for now. There is some opportunity here, with the offline resources, and some research. It just needs to be toned down and have it's citations improved (or content removed). SarahStierch ( talk) 00:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and give the creator the list of references. Had DGG tagged this for {{ db-g11}}, I would have deleted it under that criterion. Nyttend ( talk) 16:14, 19 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 05:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Laser Gold

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

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