WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2014 NOVEMBER 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 9 November	11 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

K.B. Chandrasekhar

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

Obvious accounts of self-promotion, if not anything but self-promotion. Notability very questionable. All references provided are lousy, non-existing, sponsored, ... or written by himself (what a joke). Most of his accomplishments seem to be around Jamcracker, which was deleted various times for promition, copyvio, etcetera. Midas02 ( talk) 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - It is pretty blatant WP:ARTSPAM. As the nominator has noted, the related Jamcracker article has been relentlessly spammed. "Assuming good faith" on the part of the article's creator would seem rather naïve. Anyway, there isn't a "good" article revision to revert to and no credible sources provided to indicate the subject passes WP:BIO so I can't see it's worth trying to rewrite from a neutral perspective. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Probably has improper references to self published sources. Lead section has accounts of promotion. Advertising in the Overview section, Definetly promotional in every aspect. If enough advertising was there, it could be WP:CSD'd as G11. DSCrowned^(
talk) 12:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

List of Ambisonic Productions

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also comes off as being trivial to me. GamerPro64 23:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

No objections. My reason to create this page was that I found it to be cluttering the main article, yet didn't want to just discard the potentially valuable work of previous editors. I'm not happy with moving such a scratchpad page to my User space (particularly since I don't see myself working on it any time soon), so if it can't stay here, it will have to go, unless somebody else steps up to adopt it. -- Nettings ( talk) 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Are there any other articles you made in the same vein? GamerPro64 13:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Duplicates/splits from Ambisonics#Use_in_gaming, which covers it better. Would be easier if the creator just nominated it for speedy deletion without going through the AfD process. Not a particularly useful search phrase, so deletion preferred over redirection. czar ♔ 15:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- You mean the creator as in the one who made the AfD or the one who made the article? GamerPro64 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Page creator is @ Nettings, and you're the nom. The page creator could G7 the page as the page's sole author. czar ♔ 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, Czar's observation appears accurate. I don't strongly oppose a redirect if someone felt it necessary, but stats.grok.se doesn't leave me with a sense that there's a non-trivial link from outside of WP pointing here, and various search engines will do a fine enough job at finding our coverage without the redirect. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 01:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Gardener's Lane

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Agree. Deb ( talk) 12:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Not seeing much point in relisting, soft delete with WP:NOQUORUM § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

The Bloody 9's

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

Article is about a band that doesn't meet notability. There are no references in the article and I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources in my own searches. Whpq ( talk) 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. None of the SPAs managed to convincingly prove the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Chris Sosa

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

The references are ~~all~~ mainly primary sources written by the subject. There are no few secondary sources written by others about the subject. The article fails all criteria at WP:JOURNALIST, notability has not been established. WWGB ( talk) 22:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin: This debate is littered with single-purpose accounts and recently established users. I suggest rampant sockpuppetry. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Entry contains many secondary sources. Subject meets criteria 3 (and possibly 1) for WP:JOURNALIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.221.110 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2014

— 108.44.221.110 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. 60% of the sources are blatantly by the subject himself. This leaves 6 sources that don't begin with "Chris Sosa". Of the rest:
Fr. Lawrence Farley. " http://myocn.net/historical-contradictions-fast/". myocn.net. Retrieved 10 November 2014. — is a Christian website that portrays the religion with a deep POV

"Breaking News: Jesus Did Not Exist (Part I)". jesusiswonderful.com. Retrieved 10 November 2014.[dead link] — is another point of view, dead-linked Christian website

Troy Spears. "Is humanism speciesism?". stanislaushumanists.org. Retrieved 10 November 2014. — is a proof for something else entirely

James Croft. "Humanists Are Not Human Exceptionalists". Patheos.com. Retrieved 10 November 2014. — is also a proof for something else entirely

Brittany Maynard ends own life". Today.com. Retrieved 10 November 2014. — is an article about Brittany Maynard's suicide and mentions Sosa in passing

Amanda Marcotte. "Ann Coulter Is Not a Satirist". Slate.com. Retrieved 10 November 2014. — talks about Ann Coulter and only mentions Sosa as a journalist who wrote about the same thing
That leaves a basically unsourced BLP that fails the general notability guideline. These secondary sources are barely even brief mentions. Epicgenius ( talk) 03:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep.*Numerous secondary sources have been added and the page meets WP:JOURNALIST criteria for notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azariah southworth ( talk • contribs)

— Azariah southworth ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NOTE: User:108.44.221.110 appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Azariah southworth. WWGB ( talk) 04:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. This article reads more like an "About me" page on a blog than an encyclopedic article. The majority of the article is about Sosa's political, moral, and religious views, and not what he's actually known for. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 19:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep. Entry contains many secondary sources. Subject meets criteria 3 (and possibly 1) for WP:JOURNALIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.166.75 ( talk • contribs)

— 131.216.166.75 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep, Subject seems to be non-notable at one go. When googled for the subject there are few mentions that mention him as a journalist. Although there seems to be a conflict of interest between creator and subject. If decision is keep, it requires to be cleaned up to sound non-promotional Shashanksinghvi334 ( talk) 03:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:GNG and analysis by Epicgenius. You can't blog (or sock) your way to notability. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 05:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete His strongest point of notability is writing for Salon, which although an online publication does seem to have editorial oversight. Writing for HuffPost much less so. Of the references that are third-party, all of the ones that I could find were responses to two articles of his. None were about him as a journalist. I am also dismayed at the number of accounts weighing in to this AfD that appear to have been created for the purpose of "voting" on this nomination. There appears to be both an agenda and a mis-understanding of the process. It is not a "majority vote" but a discussion to resolve issues. Not WP:NOTABLE. LaMona ( talk) 23:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

2000 Korea Super Prix

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

Abandoned article containing virtually no content whatsoever. Quite likely a candidate for speedy deletion under A1, but due to its age I've chosen to nominate it here. QueenCake ( talk) 23:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The same rationale applies to the following articles:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Young stunna

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

This article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. The VIMA Music Awards are not non-notable, just non-Western. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Sammy1339: Winning one notable award is not enough to warrant a stand alone article. The references currently in the article do not establish notability and a Google search of the subject doesn't either. Versace1608 (Talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Dea db eef 04:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ask the Techies

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

Non notable podcast. Philafrenzy ( talk) 14:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to 2003 Torneo Godó. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 07:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

2003 Open SEAT Godó

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

Duplicate article of 2003 Torneo Godó Wolbo ( talk) 15:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to 2003 Torneo Godó. "2003 Open SEAT Godó" was the official sponsored name and a plausible search title. PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 15:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Retractable pen (article renamed from Pen clicking)

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

Notability. It's a MacGuffin in a Bond film and an annoying habit in cow-orkers. Is there anything more to it? Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete with the possibility of Selective Merging - I've spent about a year, off and on, with this article, trying to clean it up, and I'm afraid that its starting to look to the point that its not a topic that can sustain its own article. As I stated on the Talk page, back when I announced my intent to try to fix the page, it was a bloated mess at first, where there were dozens of "sources", but when looking at them, nearly all of them were just flat out unreliable sources, or extremely trivial mentions of the phrase, to the point where it looked like somebody just googled the phrase "pen clicking", and created a list of times it was used somewhere. As it stands, after cleaning those out, there are very few sources that actually give any credence to the idea that "pen clicking" as a concept is at all notable on its own. The vast majority of the remaining sources mention it completely tangentially, and don't spend any time talking specifically about the idea of pen clicking itself (IE, listing it, among other things, as a bad habit or an example of fidgeting, or an article/book about a completely different subject that just happens to mention that someone clicked a pen). There is only really one source that talks specifically about the concept of "pen clicking" in any sort of depth that looks to be reliable (the one from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and even that one is suspect, as most of the article is just quoting a seemingly unnotable blogger's post, and then a brief segment where an actual scientist states that this will never be researched. I think that some of the article could possibly be salvaged to be merged into other articles though. The two lead in paragraphs about the history of click pens could potentially be useful to merge with the pen article. And perhaps some of the sources that talk about bad habits in general could be useful as sources for the article on fidgeting. But as a whole, there are just not enough sources that talk in depth about the concept of "pen clicking" as a thing on its own that shows notability. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 00:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep (note I was the creator): The available sources haven't yet been utilized. See the Google Scholar search for many great sources on the application and design of clickable pens, as well as pen clicking ( [1]. Could also restructure page into Retractable pen which ATM redirects to "pen clicking",-- Coin945 ( talk) 01:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Retractable pens would be a notable article on a piece of stationery. That's different to the extremely narrow act of recreationally clicking them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Yes, there is more to it. For example, there are multiple books about dog-training which suggest using pen clicks as a sound cue, e.g. The Thinking Dog: Crossover to Clicker Training. That's just a quick look. There's a good book on my reading list — Adventures in Stationery: A Journey Through Your Pencil Case... Andrew ( talk) 18:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment (And note, I'm the same IP as the Delete vote above, just on a different computer) The thing is, clicker training for dogs does not necessarily need to use a pen's click. Yes, it CAN, but anything that produces a clicking sound can. They even make specialty noise makers specifically for the purpose. Unless this book, or any other, discusses the use of pen clicking specifically in depth, it falls in the same line as the above mentioned "annoying habit/fidgeting" sources. As just an example, among many others, of something that produces noise, without any specific significance dedicated to show why it has any wider notability. In fact, after looking into a number of books on the subject, including the one you specifically brought up, that is exactly the case. The only time pen clicking is mentioned is in a list of numerous other everyday, household items that can be used in lieu of a specialty clicker. No importance or notability is given to a pen click in specific, and it only appears in this book (and several others) only as a single mention in a wide list of other objects. (As seen here)

Really, Andy brought up a good point in his response to Coin945. This article is not about retractable pens in general, which could very conceivably be created as a perfectly fine article. It is entirely about the concept of the very specific and narrow act of opening and closing that type of pen. So, when looking at sources, such as the Adventures in Stationery: A Journey Through Your Pencil Case you mentioned, we really need to ask ourselves, do any of them assign enough specific importance to the actual act of opening/closing a pen that gives it notability that is separate from the pen itself? 75.82.28.71 ( talk) 06:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Just one of an endless cavalcade of nervous habits, which, if clinically significant, would be mentioned in an article on nervous habits and not in a free standing article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note I have retructured the article around retractable pens, with pen clicking being a subsection at the bottom. Please add sources to make this now-notable article awesome. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 01:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Well that sucks. Instead of a deletable irrelevant article, we now have an unassailable topic filled with no content at all and a chunk of pointless filler on a different and non-notable topic. Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Well there's one way to solve that problem: let's go find those sources and hit the edit button! :D-- Coin945 ( talk) 08:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete The removal of seven rambling paragraphs on habitual pen clicking might be regarded as a relief, but as to what is left - one hardly knows where to begin

Quote from 'history' section: "The origin of the retractable pen is controversial". Therefore, no evidence that either stated origin is, in fact, correct.
The inclusion of an illustration showing a pen being clicked is just insulting the reader's intelligence (It's hardly surprising that the uploader does not want the image moved to commons).
'How a retractable pen works' doesn't actually provide much of a clue as to how the wretched thing works. Quote: "The spring creates tension with the ballpoint of the pen, allowing it to stay out."' But what exactly causes it to stay out. Certainly not the spring because that would instantly cause it to retract if it were not for some mysterious mechanism (as far as the explanation goes) that prevents it.
Quote from 'Habitual pen clicking' section: "In its normal use, the button is only pressed when someone wants the nib of the pen to be exposed ..." I know of no retractable pen that has a 'nib'. I know of plenty that have either a ball point or roller ball point.
The article is a shameless plug for Pilot^® pens mentioned by name in both the text and the illustration caption.

Even if the points raised above were to be fixed, the article would still be of little encyclopaedic value. The deletion of this article would be of no loss to the project. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 16:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

The nib is the bit of the pen that sticks out pf gthe top when you press the button.-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Nope. The only pens that have 'nibs' are the ones that you either repeatedly dip in ink or fill from a bottle of ink.^[1] Pens of the type described in the article do not have nibs. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 11:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

This is such a trivial point anyway but here is a Google Search of "Retractable pen" and "nib". It is being used as the second entry in the dictionary link you posted - as the tip of the pen. (btw if you think there is too much Pilot content - an unintended consequence mind you - then you can easily add other content to balance it out yourself). -- Coin945 ( talk) 12:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete No notability to this frivolous article.-- Mevagiss ( talk) 11:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Silly thou the article may sound at first impression, there appears to be sufficient material. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

The presence of a lot of material is insufficient qualification to make an article notable. I could write a vey long article about myself, but I doubt that the abundance of material would prevent it from being deleted as wholly un-notable within minutes. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 11:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

May I please remind voters that the article has been restructured as "retractable pen", with "pen clicking" being a subsection.

Note the nominator @ Andy Dingley: said Retractable pens would be a notable article on a piece of stationery. That's different to the extremely narrow act of recreationally clicking them. .-- Coin945 ( talk) 11:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

In that case, still delete, as being an article with no substantial coverage of relevance to what is now the claimed topic. Also see WP:TNT. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

My vote remains at Delete as well. I think you misunderstand what was meant by the nominator's comment. Saying that its possible to create a notable article on retractable pens does not mean that changing the title of the existing article to "Retractable Pen" automatically fixes all the problems with the article. In addition, the actual reworked version of the article is still unacceptible, as it relies entirely on a couple of sources which, are not only suspect as far as reliability goes, have only brief, one-sentence mentions of retractable pens. So yes, while the subject of retractable pens could potentially be created as a decent article (though I'm begining to have my doubts, as I look around for actual in-depth sources on the supposed new topic), the current page would need to be completely rewritten from the ground up to even begin to approach that possibility. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

The article is not a Featured article, no. But it is a valid stub. Here at AFD we judge articles based on their potential, not their current state. And instead of bickering about it, we can always be WP:BOLD and actually hit the edit button. :P-- Coin945 ( talk) 02:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

References

^ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nib

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. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Minus Ten and Counting

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

Filk album that apparently sold 2500 total copies (plus bootlegs) and all the refs are blog/forum. Appears to not meet WP:NMUSIC Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Absolutely no evidence of notability. Even the personal blog used as a reference is only speculating that the album was "apparently immensely popular". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. I found a mention in this book on Google Books, but that was about the best I could do. It does get a couple more trivial mentions in media studies books, but that's not enough to satisfy the GNG. If further offline coverage exists (and someone can locate the sources), then the article can be recreated. I guess it could be redirected somewhere, but I wouldn't really know where. Filk music doesn't make any mention of it. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Marcelo Tosatti

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

Can't see much notability here. There are a couple of interviews with him out there on technical websites, but not enough to pass BIO, I don't think. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

There is a Youtube reference here placing him at RedHat. The link to him taking over from Cox as maintainer is broken and hence not verifable. Suggest fuller re-write, as there it is of interest to those in Linux community? Mediavalia ( talk) 11:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Not only is this a non-notable software developer, the third link goes to a site marked as malware, so we should definitely remove that from Wikipedia ASAP. LaMona ( talk) 19:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Bublyk Kuzma Pavlovych

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

Listing on behalf of User:Шиманський Василь, who asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting. His message was: – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello! Could someone put this article for deletion? It was left, but this person is insignificant. In the Ukrainian Wikipedia article was deleted twice. Author just places articles about his relatives (sorry for mistakes). Шиманський Василь ( talk) 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - subject does not appear to have received "significant coverage" in WP:RS so is not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown ( talk) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Sonic Boom (TV series)#Video games. ( non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Sonic Boom (2014 video games)

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

This is an unnecessary page, as the full disambiguation is available at Sonic boom (disambiguation). -- Pingumeister^(
talk) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: If this page were deleted, what would be done with the material pertaining to its history, e.g. talk page discussions and the template about its appearance at DYK? Tezero ( talk) 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: Apart from lock requests, the only discussion on the talk page is about splitting the old incarnation of this article into the two articles we see now. That discussion is completed, as is the split. As for the DYK information, the record is available here. -- Pingumeister^(
talk) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(series)#Sonic_Boom. The page's content was merged into other articles, thus the page must not be deleted so as to preserve its attribution history. (I recommend withdrawing the AfD for this reason alone.) The best course of action would actually be histmerging this page with Rise of Lyric (splitting to one article as opposed to two). I imagine there will be a page on this franchise in toto eventually, but until then, redirect to the entry within the main series article. This has more utility than redirecting an unlikely disambiguator to a disambiguation page. czar ♔ 04:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- Support redirect but Sonic the Hedgehog (series)#Sonic Boom is under Animation, which could be inappropriate because we are talking the games here, and hence not pinpointing enough. Sonic Boom (TV series)#Video games might be better. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi
  Yarouin} 06:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  - Agree with Hisashiyarouin's suggestion. I'm not comfortable with privileging RoL over SC, and this feels more appropriate. Tezero ( talk) 06:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

TV series article is fine, though there will be a more definitive "franchise" section or article somewhere eventually, which will make the best target. As for privileging one of the two games over the other, the idea is preserving the edit history, which mostly pertains to the non-handheld version. That can be resolved post-AfD, though czar ♔ 15:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Sonic Boom (TV series)#Video games as per above. Closing this early might also be a good idea as I don't believe this could be a contentious issue. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per above. This is an WP:INCOMPDAB. Boleyn ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect - its a plausible search term, but yes, its redundant to the overall Sonic Boom DAB page. Would probably be better as a section there. Deletion isn't the correct path though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. If there was ever a clearer BLP1E, this is it § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Kaelin Clay

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

Not sure if this player is notable. This past weekend (November 8-9), he gained a lot of media attention for dropping the ball before he scored a touchdown. However, I'm not sure if he is notable beyond that one event. Natg 19 ( talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete One terrible play doesn't make a player notable.-- Yankees10 19:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. If we created an article for every player who ever fumbled the ball, we would soon have a huge mountain of WP:ONEEVENT junk articles. -- Biblio worm 20:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON since he has not played fully professionally. The incident mentioned is WP:ONEEVENT. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete aside from his DeSean Jackson moment, Clay appears to be just another college football player. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 16:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Obvious example of WP:BLP1E. No lasting notability and subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Fumbling a football is not grounds for notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 18:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for a college athlete per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records) or a professional football player per WP:NGRIDIRON (never appeared in a regular season game in the NFL, CFL, etc.). While the subject received some amount of coverage in blogs, fansites, etc., regarding his bobbled ball trick, significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (i.e. mainstream sports and news publications) was insufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:BLP!E. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 06:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to When the Smoke Clears: Sixty 6, Sixty 1. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm So High

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

Contested WP:PROD. Non-notable song. Possible vandalism. Possible hoax. Mr. Guye ( talk) 17:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to When the Smoke Clears: Sixty 6, Sixty 1. It lists this song as part of that album. GB fan 17:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect per GB fan, not really enough to the article for it to stand up on it's own. Artw ( talk) 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to When the Smoke Clears: Sixty 6, Sixty 1. Well it certainly didn't reach no.2 in the Hot 100, as evidenced by the chart archives. No significant coverage or anything else that suggests this warrants a standalone article; a redirect to its parent article satisfies the criteria set out at the guidelines for songs. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete -- per lack of notability and as a blatant copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Alexandra Mas

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

As I analyze the references, I'll skip over those from alexandramas.com, for obvious reasons.

And that's about it. There's a lot of fluff in this, but evidence of WP:ARTIST notability? Or of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

-Talk the panda ₯’ Arjayay Cullen328, EricEnfermero (talk) benzband talk croak talk talk talk Talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedskalnin ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear gentlemen, I ask you for your help about this nomination for deletion. First, Biruitorul has nominalized the article for deletion without to let any message to my page. Second: Alexandra Mas is a painter.She make art.She creates art!Not sing,not play in movies!

<<There's a lot of fluff in this, but evidence of WP:ARTIST notability>>

Do you think the a critic of art like Jean Deulceux is a "fluff"???? He is lecturer at LIISA (Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués).He is a "fluff"??? I don't understand what kind of notability can be necessary for an artist who have over 20 of art show in France,Japan,England! Or the fact that Alexandra in colaboration with famous French couturier Eric Tibush developed a new concept "art to wear"?This a "fluff"? Or the fact that Alexandra created a new current in modern art,"Le magnifisme" is a "fluff"??? Ok, I understand to make an observation, to try to improve, to build something, but instead,to destroy? Why to delete a page about art? What notability is necessary for an modern artist??? Pleas dear users what I call you, I ask your opinion about this kind of behaviour! The article is not finished yet!!!I worked on it!!!This is amazing.I have not yet finished yet the article and Mr.Biruitorul want to be deleted???What kind of world is wikipedia,if this thing will happen??? Notability for ART? Please excuse me but I am very very upppset!!!I worked on this article many weeks, to collect information, about art show,about this extraordinary new concept of Alexandra like: protomater,androide,magnifisme,art-a-porter,her ecological work!!!! Amazing!What the hell notability is necesary for this?Again,this is ART! I'm agree to discuss, to try to build something serrious.The article can be improved, I am sure about that,but in no way deleted!

I enter to Mr Biruitorul talk page and i see that he delete constant the article about personalities with romanian origin.Please verify! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedskalnin ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I will wait your opinions gentlemen about "fluff" and Some random pictures!

Sincerely yours,

Adrian

Leedskalnin ( talk) 19:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates ( talk) 23:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Stuartyeates, WP:TOOSOON is about actors,actrice and movies.We here discuss about a painter,about french art!

Anyway ,the article was deleted,don't worry!thanks! Leedskalnin ( talk) 09:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:ARTIST says "The person's work (or works) either ... (b)has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Are any of those art shows significant? Someone who speaks French can search Google news and Google books for results. Anyone know the name of any French art magazines to search? Dream Focus 09:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Dream Focus, I hope you dont want to tell me that Museum of Fine Arts, St. Petersburg is not a important exhibition place.Or Grand Palais Paris,GemlucArt,Monaco,Galerie Be Espace, Paris,Espace Ticolas,[33] Paris, Claire Corcia Gallery Paris,Cielo Galery, London....Please,dont tell me that! How about this references http://site.artactif.com/milcovitch/cms/accueil_dernieres_nouvelles_archives-1556.htm, or http://www.sabsconnexions.com/alexandra-mas/... Or dont tell me that jean Deulceux which is proffessor at IISAA (Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués) is a "fluff".Or french couturier Eric Tibusch.

Cullen328,sory for apel,but you have knowledge about art: can any artist to insert his work between of the works of Eric Fischl,John De Andrea,Mel Ramos,Choi Xoooang in the book “Nude Art Today” of the art critic Francis Parent without invitation ? I think the answer is of course NOT.The artist must be invited by the author. Leedskalnin ( talk) 11:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

This is the list of art shows of Alexandra Mas,with explication:
1994 Second Price for the National Police Billboard design
1995 Industrial Billboard Winner for Rulmentul sa
1997 Small Etching Biennale, group show, Uzice 31 (present in catalogue- one engraving selected)
1998 Autumn Show, UAP, National Theatre Museum, Bucharest (one engraving selected)
Student show, Timisoara (two engravings selected)
1999 Etching Triennial show, Kanagawa T2 (one engraving selected)
Autumn Show, UAP, National Theatre Museum, Bucharest (one engraving selected)
2000 Solo show, etching, hosted by HVB, Bucharest
2002 Atelier 35, group show, Constanta 70 (present in the manifest- one engraving selected)
2006 Performance & Solo show, “Ballet d’esprit” paintings, Paris 02
2011 Solo show, “BodyPaint” pictographs, Cielo Gallery, London W1
Body painting performance “The Self Portrait”, Festival des Passages, Paris 02
Solo Show, “Dancers”, NK Gallery, Paris 03
Solo show, “BodyPaint” pictographs, Memmi Gallery, Paris 08
Intrusion performance in Art Paris “Art to Wear”, Grand Palais, Paris 08
2012 “art to wear, Mad Generation Gallery, Paris 16
“The Portrait” groupe show, Claire Corcia Gallery, Paris 03 (one pictography selected, guest at the Portrait Art Today book Show, she is not present in the book)
“Nude” groupe show, Claire Corcia Gallery, Paris 03 (one pictography selected, Nude Art Today show) 2013 Solo Show, “Auroe des Temps”, C.Bortone Gallery, Paris 06 (writer Jean-Roger Geyer makes a lecture of his text about the artist during the opening)
Autumn Show, group show, Grand Palais, Paris 08 (present in catalogue- one pictography selected)
Gemluc Art, humanitarian group show, Monaco (present in catalogue- one painting selected)
Paris Photo off, groupe show, Be Space Gallery, Paris 11 (six pictographs selected)
Fine Art Academy Museum of Saint Petersburg, group show “Parisian Shades” (four pictographs selected, A King’s Head will make the show’s billboard and communication image)
2014 Permanence, Be Space Gallery, Paris 11 (six pictographs selected)
Solo Show, Ticolas Gallery, Paris 08 (the artist presents sculptures for the first time, she explains the link between hers pictographs and her vanity paintings)
Permanence, Ticolas Gallery, Paris 08 (three pictographs selected)
Fiac Off with Sab’s Connections, Espace d’art Perre Cardin, Paris 08 (two sculptures selected)
2015 Solo Show, Bordeaux 33000
Permanence, Ticolas Gallery, Paris 08 (three pictographs selected)
Permanence, Be Space Gallery, Paris 11 (six pictographs selected)

"Selected": in a group show they are choosing from artist work several , or just one , depending on the show's theme, and the quality of the art work, some shows present only one piece of each artist, some are taking the liberty of hi-lighting one artist , a good example is art academy in st petersburg where Alexandre Mas was the only one with 4 pieces because they chose her art work for the poster

Anyone can buy the book book “Nude Art Today” by Francis Parent and see itself.

Leedskalnin ( talk) 12:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

If I can just cut through some of the nonsense Leedskalnin is throwing up at us and apparently expecting us not to notice:
About those supposedly famous venues where Mas has exhibited: Galerie BE-Espace, Ticolas, Galerie Claire Corcia, Musée des Beaux-Arts du Monaco, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Saint Petersburg, Galerie Memmi, Kanagawa International Print Triennial, GemlucArt, Cielo Gallery. I think the redlinks speak for themselves, although I will note that none of these has an article on fr.wiki either, which does have significantly better coverage of French topics.
Oh, there was also Grand Palais. Of course, if we look at his source for that, it's a single picture posted on a blog, i.e. meaningless in WP:RS terms.
And finally, pardon my expression, but who the hell is Jean Deulceux and why should we care what he says? And no, I don't want to be told yet again that he's some brilliant art critic. Or to be directed to a page run by people who pay him. Or to the praise he's bestowed on Mas, reproduced on Mas' website. I want multiple independent sources attesting his qualifications and relevance as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

TomStar81
• Gene93k
ChamithN
Dream Focus
Arjayay
Cullen328
EricEnfermero
Alexf
Benzband
XXN
FreeRangeFrog
Silviu Alexandru Mihaila
Simiprof
Gug01
Malik Shabazz
Dear wikipedians,
Anyway the article was deleted,but: do you believe that this language is proper for this prestigious site like wikipedia? " who the hell is Jean Deulceux and why should we care what he says?" This is sayed by Biruitorul!!!! Dear Biruitorul,who are you to judge a french art critic?You have some degree in this domain? Jean Deulceus is professor at Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués France http://www.lisaa.com/index.php .

Musée des Beaux-Arts, Saint Petersburg "In a grand and beautiful building built for the Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, son of Paul I, and known as the Mikhailovsky Palace you will find a treasure of Russian art. We esp wanted to see the late 19th and early 20th C. Russian realist and impressionist paintings and were not disappointed. Much less crowded than the Hermitage, the museum is a great opportunity to see beautiful paintings you might not otherwise experience. The Russian Museum was commissioned by Tsar Nicholas II it holds some 400,000 works"
"Scientific-research Museum of the Russian Academy of Arts is a unique art collection not only in Russia, but throughout the world. It was established in the middle of the 18th century simultaneously with the Academy of Arts and appeared to become a truly unique collection. Only here, getting acquainted with the works of the students and the teachers one can see the first steps of the future artist and which steps lead to the mastership highlights. The Academy of Arts holds the drawings, engravings, paintings of Russian and West European masters, as well as casts of antique and West European sculptures which served as models for drawing in classes of “plaster heads” and “plaster figures”.

The building of the Academy of Arts itself which was built in 1764-1772 according to the design of Kokorinov and de la Mothe, two teachers of the Academy of Arts’ architecture class, represents an outstanding architecture monument of early Russian Classicism attributed to “especially valuable cultural heritage objects”. Russian painters and sculptors of the 18th-19th centuries decorating ceremonial interiors, the present residence of the Museum of Academy of Arts, embodied the idea of importance of arts in the life of the educated society and in Russia’s destiny and strived to give the younger generations of masters of “three most distinguished arts” the idea of their honorable calling. Academy’s House Church, Raphael and Titian halls were decorated in 1830s after the design of Ton, the author of the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, rector of the Academy of Arts in 1840s-1850s" http://eng.nimrah.ru/museum/
This is an museum "fluff" (this is your expresion).
Grand Palais
"a single picture" meaningless!!!!Yes,Of course!
What about http://site.artactif.com/milcovitch/cms/accueil_dernieres_nouvelles_archives-1556.htm? Mircea Milcovitch its a "fluff"?
Of course,for you Mircea Milcovitvh is a fluff, I know,yes.
How about http://www.amazon.fr/Nude-Today-Troisi%C3%A8me-Edition-2013-2014/dp/2953254862?164 artists are listed in this album.Alexandra is one of they!164 from entire world!Is meningles of course! Dear Biruitorul, Iam very happy that you are catalogued a portion of art francais like fluff.All this galeries (Galerie BE-Espace, Ticolas, Galerie Claire Corcia, Musée des Beaux-Arts du Monaco, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Saint Petersburg, Galerie Memmi, Kanagawa International Print Triennial, GemlucArt, Cielo Gallery),Eric Tibuch,LISAA,al of this means nothing to you.
Anyway,beacuse you extraordinary skills in art domain,the article was deleted already.What can I say?Keep up the good work!Congratulations and thank you very much!
Leedskalnin ( talk) 09:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Biruitorul, I sent the link of this conversation (including your remarks ) to Mr.Professor from Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués France. I will wait his reply, which I post this.Next time,don't use the afirmation like this:
" who the hell is Jean Deulceux and why should we care what he says?"
Leedskalnin ( talk) 10:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you very much! reply

I see there's plenty more vapidity waiting for me to steamroller.
In an attempt to establish the significance of the Saint Petersburg Museum, you start with a review from TripAdvisor (!): see WP:V for that; then continue with self-praise from the museum's own website. Not good enough, I'm afraid. I'll also note you haven't even offered a citation as to Mas' presence at the museum, rendering this entire angle irrelevant.
Next, and again pardon my phrasing, but just who the bloody hell is Mircea Milcovitch, and why should anyone give a fig about his musings? (And no, repeating he's a "known artist" isn't going to cut it. Try adducing some independent sources.) Well, you've admitted he is the uncle of Mas: COI, anyone? In any event, what you've brought from Milcovitch is, again, meaningless: two photos on his personal blog. I'm not sure how that's supposed to indicate notability, given that this encyclopedia is based on textual sources, not on pictures posted by uncles of their nieces standing before some twisted piece of rock that's supposed to be "art".
An amazon.com sale page is not a reliable source, per WP:ELNO, point 5.
As for Jean Deulceux: simply repeating he's a professor at the wretched Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués (note the red link) isn't doing much for his standing. That happens to be a private institution, which, let's be honest, in the French context is a receptacle for third-rate hacks who weren't good enough to land a position at a real school like École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts, École nationale supérieure de création industrielle, École nationale supérieure des arts décoratifs, and so forth. In other words, in terms of notability, he's a nobody. And the opinions of a nobody reproduced on the website of a nobody amount to nothing. Or, as King Lear put it rather more eloquently, "nothing will come of nothing". - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Administrator,Clerck,or OTRS member,and wikipedian users who are interested in this case, The acussation for this article is the lack of notability.For example,Mr.professor Jean Deulceux,in opinion of acusator has not notability.This is a matter where I am not so sure. In my opinion, no one can be professor at LISAA (I quted from the site of institution :"Reconnu par le ministère de la culture et de la communication" )without have a very solid expertise in art domain.It is obviously in my opinion.Even he is not a public person (in art,is very hard to be a public person,because the artist have very little time to expend oninterviews in mass media,which anyway is not very interested in this domain of critic art).Anyway,other user argues against acusator saying that: WP:ARTIST says "The person's work (or works) either ... (b)has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition".Again,the acusator say that the location where the artshows of Mrs.Mas was exposed has not coverage in wikipedia.i think this is not a evidence.For example:Musée des Beaux-Arts, Saint Petersburg is scientific-research Museum of the Russian Academy,of course a very respectable institution.The museum hasover 400000 artworks,and his galleries are very appreciated in entire world. Or Grandpalais from Paris,or other galleries (Galerie BE-Espace, Ticolas, Galerie Claire Corcia, Musée des Beaux-Arts du Monaco,Galerie Memmi, Kanagawa International Print Triennial, GemlucArt, Cielo Gallery) where Mrs.Mas was exposed:they are very exclusiviste gallery,even they not appear in wikipedia.Anyone can consulting they sites,and see the point.Also, Mr.art critic Francis Paren, art critic and member of l'AICA (International Association of Art Critics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Art_Critics invited Mrs.Mas to participate with her artwolrks next with other 164 famous artist from entire world in the book “Nude Art Today”.I think this tell something.In the light of this facts,in my opinion,the subject has a chance,and the readers of wikipedia from entire world will find many interesting things about contemporary art from this article.The acusator say that I quoted from Mrs.Alexandra Mas site.I respond to this acusation: this domain of contemporany art is very complex and very hard to explain to mass audience.I'm a very pasionate art lover,in specially modern art,but I don't have the knowledge of Mr.Deulceux,or Mrs.Mas to explain the terms like "Vanitas","Protomater","Magnifisme","Art a la porte".This are new born currents in modern arts,developed or created by Mrs.Mas,in colaboration with other art creators,like Christopher Lavenaire or coutourier Eric Tibusch ( http://www.tibusch.com/)french couturier.This is the cause for what I quoted that texts.Mrs.reporter AFP https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Christiane_Marek, realease in 2010 an reportage about this modern concept of Art a la Wear,in which the artworks are converted in fashion creations and presented at fashion parade in entire world.This a new link http://vimeo.com/15566742 which I inserted in temporary page where the article is rebuilded.Also,another aspects who can be considered is the fact that Mrs.Alexandra Mas gave up rights to utilization of some of her artworks: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LightTry_AMas_140.80.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ProtoMatterIII_detail_AMas.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AKingshead2_Stupendium-AMas.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Windgod_AMas_pictography.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moarning2_engraving_AMas.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prokofief_artaporter_2013.jpg to wikipedians wich is almost impossible to obtaining from any other artists.She have not a very interests in this article,but I succeded to convince her that this is for interests of wikipedian lovers of modern art.It will be a would be a great loss for wikipedians if this remarcable (in my opinion) artworks can't be inserted into a rebuild article .Convince your self. (this artwotks ar very expensive,and of course the rights for publication the same).Please help me in my efforts in building this article.Also,I make an apel to Mrs. user Moonriddengirl which I understand is an autority in copyrights matter to help in the matter of the texts which I can or not quoted in my article.Again,I don't want to renounce at this texts,because is a far better explanation of the art fenomenon depicted in article that I can make.At this moment,the article was moved for rebuilding at atemporary page at link /info/en/?search=Talk:Alexandra_Mas/Temp. I want to ask you to put a mark or something on this page that it can't be deleted.I want to continue to work at this page,and I need that link because at this moment that page are consulted by french artists and art critics whom I ask the opinion.And of course to wikipedia users which are showing interest in this subject.The user who moved the article added an template,but I'm affraid is not enough.You can imagine that is very hard to sent Mrs.Deulceux,or Mrs Paren for example the article in Microsoft Word,or other forms. .If its not posible,please tell me how long can maintain that temporary link?This is a very important matter,I hope you understand me. Of course,If my effort to constructed again this article not succeded the page can be deleted finally.But I need time, is a very hard work trust me.I am sure that you know is not easey to collect information from artists,from art critics(some has not time,some are not interested,etc). Thank you very much for your help, Sincerely yours, Adrian C. Alias Leedskalnin ( talk) 08:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear user of wikipedia,
If you want to make observation about this article,please use the standard of Wikipedia:Civility,in spirit of good collaboration and friendship with our french readers. This discussion are followed by next french people:
Mr.professor Jean Deulceux ( http://interventions-histoire-de-l-art.over-blog.com/)LISAA (Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués);
Mr. Francis Parent( http://www.francis-parent.com/) art critic ,member of AICA ( http://www.aicainternational.org/)
Mrs.Alexandra Mas french artist,like subject of article;
Mr.Erich Tibusch,french couturier( http://www.tibusch.com/)
Mrs.Aurore Tome,french actress( http://www.aurore-tome.com/accueil.cfm/367301_aurore_tome.html);
Mr.Mircea Milkovitch( http://site.artactif.com/milcovitch/),french sculptor;
Mr. Christopher Lavenaire,french pictor ( http://www.lavenair.book.fr/);
Thank you again. Leedskalnin ( talk) 18:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

You are continually getting caught up in irrelevant details. The real question before us is not whether this or that gallery or museum or critic is notable (although that's certainly a factor), but whether Mas meets the criteria set out at WP:ARTIST. As to whether her work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition": that is not really a difficult question; it is answerable through reviews in the right places. Charles James and Sigmar Polke were the subjects of recent exhibitions at the MoMA, reviewed here and here by the NYT; the Ralph Fasanella show at the Smithsonian American Art Museum was picked up by the WaPo. Of course, these three artists would still be notable if these exhibitions had never occurred and been reviewed, but that is the level of coverage that indicates an artist's work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". It's not a subjective standard, but one established through a meaningful level of coverage. And of course, in the case of Mas, such coverage is entirely absent. It's not enough to say "everyone knows about such and such art gallery, therefore her work was a substantial part of a significant exhibition". It doesn't work that way; it works through critical attention in legitimate publications.
(I cannot help but remark, parenthetically, that whatever the status of the Saint Petersburg museum may be, you've failed to provide any kind of source as to her alleged exhibition there. An unsubstantiated claim of that type cannot even begin to be evaluated.)
And again: "has won significant critical attention". This is, in its essence, not a subjective measure either. Reviews of the type linked above, or detailed coverage in independently edited publications, or quotable text in published volumes (notice I said "quotable"; you've never quoted Nude Art Today, despite mentioning it over and over): that's "significant critical attention". Not what some guy says on her website. It's not too difficult to see the difference in levels of coverage.
Furthermore, WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". That's a rather high standard. And you've manifestly failed to show she meets it, or even tried to show it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

About notability in art, just an art expert can apreciate this.We don't discuss her about Justin Bieber, Sir!We discusd here about french art.About art current,about concepts in art.It is not about hip pop.I just ask that special case of modern art to judged by a clerk or administrator who are solid knowledge about arr.If you consider that Alexandra Mas and her concept of Magnifisme,Vanitas,protomater,art a porter have absolut not importance for wikipedia,I am stunned.The discussion about this subject are followed by a number of french personalities,like Jean Deulceux,art critic and professor at Institute Superieur de Art Aplique,Francis Paren,member of Aica.Please believe me,thi gentlemen was stunned when they heard that an artist like Alexandra Mas who at age of 36 years has over 22 arts shows in many prodigious place in the world had not notability. I don't know what to say anymoore.If for you the opinion of Birutorul(by the way,I don't know what expertise have in art),are over the opinion of two great french art critics that means the wikipedia will evolve to just an informativ media agency who in time will loose the interest of his supporter.Wikipedia must evolve,must adapt to new chalenge,to new manifests.It is not ok to consider moore interesting Justin Bieber that an french artist. Ok,this is my opinion,anyway,I don't loose nothing,just an article.But believe me,I say with bitterness this,wikipedia loose much moore.Loose that spirit of encyclopedic adventure,of knowledge,of curiosity,of curtoasy about the true vallor of this world.Your decision fill me again with bitternes and not understanding.But I hope,in timt,that old and to rigid standard of notability which suffocated any try to give a new imbold to new frontiet will be improved.Wikipedia dont apartain to standards and rigid rulles,but to knowledge and informations.Wikipedia must desire to evolve to fill this great thirst of the world for knowledge.Not notability!Knowledge! Reliable sources means nothing for me me if this source has not expertize.For me is faae better the opinion of Mr.Deulceux about Titian that opinion of Washington Post.Again,this is not about footbal,or some hip hop or some movie.Its about peinture,about art technics,simbolism,currents etc.Dont judge a vallor in art by rulles which are not applicable here.An artshow is not you tube to gattering millions of spectateurs.A pieces of art is not an iphone,is unique.A comment of Mr.Deulceux wrote on the wall of a building is for me much valuable that apparition in washington post of some short news wrote by journalist.This is my opinion and I dont change it. With respect, Adrian Leedskalnin ( talk) 07:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete It seems that the recent version of the article is based on copyright violations. Therefore, it must go. Ten thousand words of passionate argument without good sources accomplishes nothing. Far better to bring forth four or five indisputably reliable and independent sources that devote significant coverage to this artist. So far, I see a multitude of weak sources. We do not provide a "free pass" to articles about artists, just because the writer of the article is a devoted fan. Any future article must be neutral and well sourced. Take as an example Mel Ramos, an artist mentioned above, and I've worked on that article. Decades of exhibitions in major museums. Several books written about his life and work. Indisputably notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Sir Cullen328,I appreciate very much your opinion it is very constructive,even is negative about article.I have read your article,and indeed,is a very good job.I see in it an help hand for me.If I would decided to continue to work on this subject in the future,I will take like reference your article.It is very suggestive for me.Thank you again,Sir.
Leedskalnin ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

The 20/20 Experience – The Complete Experience

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

All of the content here is essentially a repeat of information from The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2. Justin Timberlake discography already does the job of documenting this album's existence. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Given that it earned a Grammy nomination. Erick ( talk) 16:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Should all compilation albums be deleted then? It charted on several national charts and as Erick said, was nominated for a Grammy. — Status ( talk · contribs) 18:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

No, not all compilation album articles should be deleted. Many, such as The Immaculate Collection, offer quite a bit of encyclopedic value. This article is no more than a copy/paste from the 2 of 2 article; and we have List of awards and nominations received by Justin Timberlake and Justin Timberlake discography to discuss award nominations and chart positions. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." – Chase ( talk / contribs) 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Keep per Status and Erick. — Tomíca ^(T2ME) 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Please see WP:Speedy keep#Applicability. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 18:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)~~ reply

Keep. Any album that is nominated for a Grammy Award is obviously notable. -- Biblio worm 20:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep SNOW KEEP at this point. Nominated for a Grammy = Notable per WP:NALBUMS. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Strong keep, as the album was Grammy-nominated and has charted on its own. As for the content of the article, we should strive to improve it – deleting the article is not the way to go here. — Mayast ( talk) 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
To all above citing WP:NALBUM and the Grammy nomination as the sole reason to keep, please note that NALBUM also states, "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." – Chase ( talk / contribs) 15:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Zeuss

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

Tagged for notability and BLP refs since 2010. Unlikely to ever demonstrate meeting WP:GNG. — Swpb^talk 15:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Swpb^talk 15:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Swpb^talk 15:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Swpb^talk 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete No evidence of notability. Sources fail RS. Article appears to be promotional.- Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Password Lock

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Prod tag removed by single-edit IP. — Swpb^talk 15:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Swpb^talk 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - no reliable sources. Bearian ( talk) 22:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - Agree. Looks like WP:SPIP. Cannot find any independent verifiable sources either. Mediavalia ( talk) 11:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All else fixed, we're good § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

EtonHouse International Education Group

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

NOTE: Becuase they are essentially the same article, I am including the following in this afd: Ng Gim Choo, Draft:EtonHouse International Education Group, User:306peppero/sandbox, EtonHouse Korea

On a routine pass through my deletion log this morning I was unpleasantly surprised to see that this article had been recreated. Again. After a review of the article though, it apparent that there is much more at play here than would initially meet the eyes, so I am listing this here with an explanation and history, and I would ask the community to agree to a special sanction.

This is the third time that EtonHouse International Education Group has been created here on Wikipedia, and in all three cases the article has been backed by people whom I presume have a strong attachment to the school. I presume to guess this because the earliest creator for the article was Etonhousesingapore ( talk · contribs), an account with promotional swing to it. At the time the article was created it was written as an add, read like a promotion, and was dangerously close to being considered an open copyright violation because almost everything in the article had been taken at or near verbatim from their website pages (which you can see in the external links section. I found the article after Mike Rosoft ( talk · contribs) had already axed it on CSD G11 grounds, and reaxed it on those same grounds. Having watched this potentially copyright infringing article reappear once more, and in its more or less pre-csd state, I get the feeling that a normal csd isn't going to cut it, so I;m here to request that the community sanction a deletion of this article on through afd.

Moreover, as I note above, this is dangerously close to being in open violation of our copyright infringement policies on site. Therefore, in order to affect a timely halt to the inclusion of copyrighted material, and to ensure the page is not rebuilt in its current form for a fourth time, I am asking that the page be protected from recreation until such time as a version of the article that doesn't appear to be a thinly veiled rewording of the webpages for this school is created and approved by reviewers, all the more so because I suspect there are socks or multiple accounts attempting to maintain the article at or near its current form. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep EtonHouse International Education Group and Ng Gim Choo. Delete Draft:EtonHouse International Education Group and User:306peppero/sandbox. Redirect EtonHouse Korea to EtonHouse International Education Group, pending some display of independent notability. Wow, this is quite a mess you found, TomStar81! The first two articles have been cleaned up, and I think both are easily notable enough for inclusion. The draft and sandbox still have copyright issues and are not necessary in any event. The franchise article isn't likely to have stand-alone notability. It seems very likely to me that these articles were created by staff of the group or school; this happens a lot with schools and companies. I often find that the best way to prevent them coming back over and over again in unusable form is to create a usable form. :) That said, sometimes advertisements or copyvios do creep back in. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep EtonHouse International Education Group and Ng Gim Choo, redirect EtonHouse Korea, delete sandboxes and drafts for copyvio. I blanked and rewrote up the article last night, and Moonriddengirl has added to it quite extensively. Independent notability is now there and shown. JTdale ^Talk 15:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep EtonHouse International Education Group and Ng Gim Choo. Redirect EtonHouse Korea . All as per Moonriddengirl and JTdale with thanks on behalf of WP:WPSCH for their work . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Will-o'-the-wisp. ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 15:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Aarnivalkea

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "Unreferenced entry that fails WP:GNG." It was deprodded by User:Delirium with the following edit summary: "unprod; there's already a proposed merge, which would make more sense than deletion, if that is the preference (but see talk for an objection to the proposed merge". The proposed merge doesn't address the fact that this entry has been unreferenced for 8 years, and thus fails GNG and V. I looked at Google Books and I am not seeing enough English language sources to warrant keeping this. Maybe there's something in the Finnish, but since nobody bothered to add a single one in eight years... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge, as I proposed some years ago. However, I continue to think deletion is unreasonable: either the article should be kept, or it should be merged. There is a reasonable discussion to be had about those alternatives (see the talk page). But there is no reasonable argument in favor of deletion. Therefore I am surprised by this nomination, which seems to me to be entirely without justification. -- Delirium ( talk) 05:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Read WP:V and WP:GNG; they are all the justification we need to delete a stub that's been unreferenced for 8 years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. What is presented it not notable for an article in and of itself; what is mentioned can be placed in the Outokumpu coppermine article as a footnote. Kierzek ( talk) 14:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge - I did find several mentions in gBooks but they are behind paywalls and other such obstacles (one is in finnish, and the translation software won't work on gBooks) so I'm not entirely sure what they say, but definitely proves the subject is real. For example, from Llewellyn's Complete Book of Names for Pagans, Wiccans, Witches, Druids, Heathens, Mages, Shamans & Independent Thinkers of All Sorts who are Curious about Names from Every Place and Every Time it I quote says; In Finland, the seed of the fern flower found on Midsummer Night is said to be a powerful talisman, which will bestow invisibility upon the finder and enable them to discover Aarnivalkea—places where an eternal fire similar to the English... and then cuts off. See gbooks search. JTdale ^Talk 20:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge with Will-o'-the-wisp]. My Finnish ain't all that (ha), so if someone comes up with some sources that cover this in sufficient depth then fair enough. Until then though, a merge/redirect, as is already proposed, will do just fine. Surprised no-one has just done it to be honest. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect, merge if referenced The Finnish Wikipedia article on Will-o'-the-wisp mentions Aarnivalkea as an alternative name to the light phenomenon in the lead (the other is Virvatuli in Finnish). It doesn't seem to be notable as a separate thing, but the Northern Europe section could be expanded with this if someone digs up references. -- Pudeo ' 01:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Iceage sugar

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

Don't believe that they meet WP:NBAND - have yet to release an album. Currently playing the pub/club circuit - non notable IMO Gbawden ( talk) 10:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Well, to start with the article is at the wrong capitalisation. Should be Iceage Sugar. Other than that, couldn't find anyway so I support delete. JTdale ^Talk 10:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. not notable; maybe someday. Kierzek ( talk) 14:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, not notable, fails WP:NBAND. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. A few blog mentions/reviews and gig listings aside, I couldn't find anything that would demonstrate any kind of notability. Maybe one day they'll meet the notability threshold for bands, but they ain't there yet. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was snow close. The consensus seems to be clear that at best this is an essay based upon a WP:NEOLOGISM that has yet to gain enough attention to be considered notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. That there are also concerns over potential copyright violations makes it even more of a reason to snow close this early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

5 things you should do in university

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

This does not seam like an encyclopedic topic. This is simply not notable Gbawden ( talk) 09:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTADVICE Jinkinson talk to me 12:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. This appears to be based on an non-notable article in a university publication. It's targeting Hong Kong universities, and is of dubious value even there. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete At best this is WP:NOTADVICE. At worst it might be a copyright violation. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 14:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable. Kierzek ( talk) 14:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTADVICE. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Neither a phrase often used by faculty nor a pamphlet distributed widely on campus are going to meet the WP:GNG except in the most unusual of circumstances. No indication that those exist. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Textbox.io

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

fails to mention Notability, at the moment its reads like an advert. Avono ( talk) 09:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a visual editor. The Prod was removed by an IP with the comment "This is notable as it is a recently-released software product. This product is a member of a notable category of software which contains many other software products." Any recent new item in an existing software field is not inherently notable, and I am not finding evidence that this one has attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no RS coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 12:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator has been active in the last 12 hours so has had plenty of time to expand his nomination as I asked him to do on his talk page. Bduke (Discussion) 20:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

2015 ASB Classic

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

Too crazy and wrong. 333-blue 09:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Nomination makes no sense? Please give a decent argument. Plenty of media coverage of this, which seems to fulfill guidelines. JTdale ^Talk 11:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Part of the WTA Tour, the elite tour in the most prominent women's sport. Included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Tournament. Any WTA tournament is bound to get plenty of coverage. Articles are often created in advance to show who will play. PrimeHunter ( talk) 15:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Part of WTA Tour, nom makes no sense. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Unless the nominator can expand the nomination to give a valid reason, I will speedy close this nomination as I have for another non-valid nomination by this user. In this case "Too crazy and wrong" could possibly be expanded to mean something, although I doubt it . -- Bduke (Discussion) 20:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Nonsensical nomination, abuse of AfD process.-- Wolbo ( talk) 11:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep. Hard to tell with this user if this is for real, or just another case of wanting to press the delete button. Jared Preston ( talk) 18:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator does not give a valid reason for deletion. Bduke (Discussion) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Louis Fuzelier

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

Very short. 333-blue 08:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep – Notable (in Grove) prolific author. "Very short" is not a WP:DEL-REASON. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 10:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep - Stub status has nothing to do with notability. Nominator seems to be making a lot of nonsensical nominations. JTdale ^Talk 11:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Why was this even nominated? We don't delete articles for being short. There are many stubs = "very short" articles in Wikipedia. We add to them to make them better. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 14:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Nom makes no sense, an article being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, under A7 and G11 by User:Deb. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Powpicker

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

I'm not able to find a single reference (notable or not) about this website/product. I've also searched for information about the name of the website, "baopinche", and I have found only citations by websites that provide information about domain registrants. The article does not help in finding notable sources and provides only references to Facebook profiles and the official website. In its current form, the article is written as a product brochure. The topic of the article fully fails WP:GNG and, as a consequence, WP:WEB as well. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 08:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. I'm with the nominator on this one - fails any notability guideline you care to apply to it, most pertinently WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete: Per nom, it seems to meet requirements for both WP:A7 and WP:G11.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 08:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete I've retagged it multiple A7 & G11. Peridon ( talk) 14:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Todd Takayoshi

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

Fails WP:BASE/N and a perfunctory review of Google shows he fails WP:GNG. He was never a coach at the major league level, rather he was an assistant and a coordinator. He once hit over .400 in a minor league season. That really has nothing to do with this AfD, but I thought it was cool. Alex ( talk) 08:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete.. as copyvio of baseball bullpen wiki... Because of the licensing changes on wikipedia material copied from the bullpen after 2008 are not allowed... and the article seems to have been created in 2013.. As to his notability, i have a soft spot for him since i used to go to University of Hawaii games back when he played for them... Unsure of his Major League coaching credentials as he seems to have mostly coached in the minors or at the organizational level... I do not believe he is currently in the Dodgers organization either so the article is out of date. Spanneraol ( talk) 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete G12. Copyvio of [2]. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi
Yarouin} 13:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete I was not aware that BR Bullpen's status has changed. I believe I created this article under the idea that he was a major league coach, not a minor league one. There is some coverage, but not enough for GNG. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as a copyvio. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 15:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 - tagged as such Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- Speedy Declined Web article is dated 20 August 2014, at 05:17, and Web Archive does not hold any versions. Possible backwardscopy Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  - Not sure what you checked their Ronhjones, but the article history on the bullpen page [3] shows a creation date of December 2006 and the article here was created January 2013. Spanneraol ( talk) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    - Point taken. Not a site I have used before, didn't know there was a full history. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Terry Scott Taylor. Delete comments point out lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Keep comments, with one exception, do not dispute this, mostly making comments around wanting Wikipedia to include an article on the topic. While such personal opinions were taken into account, they carry little weight against valid policy arguments. As the consensus is to merge the material into the parent article leaving a redirect behind, in this case everyone should be satisfied because nothing will be removed or deleted from Wikipedia. Anyone searching for "Knowledge & Innocence" will find exactly the same material, except now it will be placed in context in the artist's article page rather than as a standalone page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Knowledge & Innocence

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

I love this album, but it is not notable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It was a redirect for over two years and an editor decided that it should have an article. Only a single source was added. I have the source—a brief entry in the encyclopedia. The entry for the album is part of the creator's (Terry Scott Taylor) article. It is one, long paragraph. It's 3/4 of a column of the work. It does not make the album sufficiently notable. The album did not sell well. It produced one single, a collaboration with Randy Stonehill, that did not chart. The material could easily be included in the creator's article and a redirect left. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

How do you know how much it sold? I'm sorry - is Wikipedia running out of server space? why the rush to delete as much as possible? When Wikipedia first started, one of the folks running it told me that they would rather see Wikipedia grow and increase in it's number of articles - not shrink. They said if an article is not good enough, try to make it better before marking it for deletion. Is there some reason that vision changed? Now there seems to be a rush to delete as much as possible about certain topics (while leaving all kinds of garbage for others) Audiori ( talk) 21:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I was in the industry during this time. It didn't sell well. I have no sales figures to support my claim, but you don't have any to support that it reached the top of any sales chart, and that's the crux of that argument. Albums that top charts are considered notable, but there has to be a reference to support that.

While Wikipedia isn't running out of server space, that's not an issue either. It only lists notable subjects. In this case the subject is an album. I love the album. It got me to read Blake. But that does not make the album notable in Wikipedia's terms. Also see WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM.

There's no rush to delete it. The debate will go on for a while. The article was redirecting for over two years. If you want more time to work on the article, you could request that it be moved to your user space. When it's in "better shape" (supports the album's claim to notability) you can nominate to have it reviewed and moved back into main space.

It's not about the quality of the article, re: "good enough", it's about the subject's notability. You can't insert notability if none exists.

We are not trying to rush to delete "as much as possible about certain topics", we are removing articles that are not notable. If you have other "kinds of garbage" that you think should be deleted, I can explain whether it meets criteria or not, or you can nominate it for one of three types of deletion processes.

Since I've bought enough from Taylor and DA over the years, you have my email address. I give you permission to check your records. Search for my family name in your sales records, with and without the umlaut. I'd be glad to discuss it with you. I am an equal opportunity nominator. I have nominated to material for deletion from bands that are more well-known that this and many from bands less well known as well. Each article stands on its own merits. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

This is what I'm talking about. I started creating articles on Wikipedia at the very start... wayyyy back at the very beginning when popular TV shows didn't even have articles. The folks running it told me personally at the time that since Wikipedia was not an encyclopedia and created with user content - it could be more than what was found in an encyclopedia. Somewhat obscure albums, movies and books could still have articles that would never be heard of elsewhere. What was considered notable at that time? Anything that was beyond maybe a hundred people knowing about it. If thousands knew of it all over a country (or at least tens of thousands all over the world, as is the case here) it could have an article. That's what was great about Wikipedia. Deleting everything that doesn't top a chart seems to be counterproductive to the point of Wikipeida. Audiori ( talk) 22:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

So you're saying that we should keep the material because it's been around for a decade? Ask Terry if he has his tuner from 2005. Just because he had one in 2005 doesn't mean he should still use it in 2014. Things change. We have codified what does and doesn't constitute a notable album. I linked you to it. The fact that you didn't know it was redirected for more than two years tells me you don't even care. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

My comments and questions were more about Wikipedia policy than this article in general. Is the standard that it has to top a chart? Do you realize how many albums on Wikipedia that have never topped a chart? Most albums in existence have never topped a chart. I know very few music fans that would tell you that every important album in history has topped a chart or won an award. That's meaningless to notability. Audiori ( talk) 02:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not a policy, it's a guideline. An I linked to the three notability guidelines: WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I never wrote "topped" it simply has to appear on a chart. And there are other criteria: numerous reviews from reliable sources is one. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to artist. WP is definitely an encyclopedia, and its scope has definitely changed since its early days. There's nothing stopping anyone from expanding on this album's merits within the parent artist's article. I found no hits for this album (or phrase when paired with the artist) in multiple database and web searches, which follows that there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) The topic is fine for redirecting, though, and can always spin out summary style. I already left a note on the nom's page, but these types of easy redirects should be settled on the article talk pages since outright deletion is out of the question. czar ♔ 22:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

"these types of easy redirects should be settled on the article talk pages since outright deletion is out of the question." - Wrong. Redirects are deletions, while merges are not. Redirects, when done lazily and sloppily, are extremely destructive, and can lead to hours of volunteer manhours and reusable information disappearing in an instant, with most editors unaware it was ever there in the first place. Earflaps ( talk) 17:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - User:Czar, User:Audiori, the extensive and reliable Mark Alan Powell source Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music specifically says that this artist's influence and importance is not to be judged by solo commerical success. And both Powell (200) and Sfetcu (2014) discuss in particular this first solo album in reference to the oft-remarked "Beatles-like" music of the artist, with Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music discussing individual songs. User:Walter Görlitz thank you for having launched an AFD as requested. In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Walter noted that he had the source above, and that the album had little coverage in it. Indeed, based on the quotations put in the article, the legacy is much more the artist's than the album's. If this is the extent of the album's coverage, I'm not sure how one could argue that it's significant or sufficient for the general notability guideline (or, moreover, why keeping a nearly empty article with a dearth of sources makes more sense than redirection) czar ♔ 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Czar, I'm slightly concerned about the discussion on Walter's Talk page where you are apparently advising him to blank and redirect albums without discussion, and then coming here to support AFD after advising blank and redirect. This discussion should be kept open long enough to get a broader set of views of editors not directly involved in blanking the article. In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The entry in the EofCCM is not for the album but for the artist. The artist is notable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

That's a mischaracterization of my advice, which was to have the discussion outside of AfD and not to forego discussion altogether. It was a reminder that the D in AfD is for deletion and not discussion: AfD nominations that do not advocate for the outright deletion of an article can be closed as speedy keep #1. As almost all albums on Wikipedia have parent articles for the artist, it doesn't make sense to argue for their deletion via AfD when they qualify for redirection, so discuss on the talk page and do it yourself upon consensus. Your slight concern is unwarranted as I have no involvement in this article other than seeing it discussed beneath my conversation with Walter. Isn't that why it was brought here? I'm a third party and my review of the available sourcing is as objective as it is in every other AfD I review. czar ♔ 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

keep' - try to improve it before it is deleted. Audiori ( talk) 02:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. The former needs to be maintained with great diligence and high standards, the later derives its value from its expansiveness. Nothing would be gained by deletion here. Call it an WP:IAR keep if you wish — use common sense. Carrite ( talk) 07:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect back to Terry Scott Taylor. Here's the thing(s): it doesn't matter what you think Wikipedia should or shouldn't include; it doesn't matter how old an album is, or how successful its creator; it doesn't even really matter if the album topped the Billboard charts for a year. The guidelines for inclusion are the general notability guideline and, in this case, the guideline for albums. Without the significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't meet the bar, and should be redirected to the artistes article, same as for all other albums/singles in the same position. If the creator (/significant contributor) wants it userfied so they can work on finding and adding these sources, then have at it, but if not, then just redirect it. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 02:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment It actually does matter if it did top the Billboard charts, particularly if they're year-end charts. See WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  - Not in and of itself. A(n imaginary) situation whereby an album topped the charts but had no significant coverage anywhere would mean there wouldn't be enough information for a standalone article, so would result in a redirect being the most suitable course of action. Entirely hypothetical of course, because chart placings usually get you significant coverage. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 04:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep, Album seems to be notable although without significant mentions. My decision will be Keep for it. Shashanksinghvi334 ( talk) 03:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- @ Shashanksinghvi334: On what grounds do you find it notable? You stated it does not have "significant mentions", which is the main issue. Without "significant mentions", it's not notable. Please clarify. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Merge with no loss of information. Not enough coverage to be notable independently, but very notable within the context of the artist's history. Not a big article, no reason the prose and tracklisting can't snugly fit in the main bio and/or discography. Earflaps ( talk) 16:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Merge, userify, or redirect in that order. Sources borderline WP:GNG, so WP:SPINOUT. The BLP has sourcing issues, so this will aid that too. Widefox; talk 10:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- If the decision is delete, feel free to userify to my user space. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Valid concerns are raised about the focus, NPOV, notability as a topic, and sourcing of the article. Comments for keeping do not adequately address those concerns. The keep votes in general admit of problems, though feel the article has potential - as such I would be open to Wikipedia:Userfication on request; though on the agreement, given the political nature of the topic, that if the article is not successfully moved into mainspace within six months, that it be deleted from user space, and that the article is not moved into mainspace without either first notifying me, or immediately putting it up for discussion at AfD to verify that it now meets consensus for inclusion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Islamist insurgency in Iran

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

This article seems to be a bit of a coatrack mixing Balochistan conflict with the Iranian intervention against ISIS. Both of which are covered by other articles. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 08:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

delete. per Serialjoepsycho, Iran's war on Jaish ul-Adl and ISIL are not related to eachother. Pahlevun ( talk) 13:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep Removing or separating the Jaish ul-Adl reference should solve the problem. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 04:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Even if you remove the section on Jaish ul-Adl There is a particular question on the notability of the ISIL bit. There is only one source for this [4]. The source suggest that the information they had at time of reporting isn't reliable.

On a side note the name is very disconcerting. If the Iranian revolution did not have a name already this would almost be perfect. An Islamist insurgency in an Islamist country. The insurgency also seems to becoming from outside Iran not inside. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 06:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

You have a point here. I'll change my vote to "weak keep" because I still feel this article is relevant. Perhaps allow more than for the article to grow. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 06:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - There has been evidence that other radical Islamist groups have been participating in the Iranian Insurgency, as I read on a CNN article last month. There is substantial evidence that this event is occurring within the fringes of Iran (which is why the US agreed to aid Iran in their fight against radical Islamists in their own country), so this article shouldn't be deleted. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 07:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Can you provide a link to the CNN source? -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 08:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment, the Iranian Revolution in Iran was initially an insurgency, as stated in this reliable source: Christian Smith; William R Kenan Jr Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society Christian Smith (16 July 2014). Disruptive Religion: The Force of Faith in Social Movement Activism. Routledge. pp. 47–66. ISBN 978-1-136-66603-2.. Therefore, without weighing in, this might be salvageable.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

If the Iranian revolution did not have a name this would be the perfect name for it. Are you suggesting salvaging this by turning it into a general article on Islamic insurgency in Iran? -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 01:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment The name is ridiculous since Iran is run by Islamists, a more accurate name would be something like Sunni Islamist insurgency in Iran. The article is wrong in relating to this as blowback from involvement in Iraq as there have been Sunni Baloch groups fighting the Iranian Government for many years. Gazkthul ( talk) 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - joining two different issues on opposite sides of the country. Legacypac ( talk) 00:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - Article is not greatly researched by it's main editor. I can see more potential. I also commend the comment of Gazkthul, we may have to describe that it is a Sunni Islamist insurgency, or movement. Noteswork ( talk) 15:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

What potential do you see? A page on sunni insurgency in Iran seems abit broad. Perhaps a daughter article of Balochistan conflict that encompasses The Iranian end of it? -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 20:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

There's no fault if the article is going to remain stub. Balochistan conflict is more about the Pakistani rebels. Iranian government had armed against these rebellions, it is a different conflict. Noteswork ( talk) 12:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Abdul Rauf Rigi, now deceased, was the spokesman for Jaish ul-Adl and claimed to be the Brother of Abdul Malik Rigi the leader of Jundallah [5]. It seems to absorbed a large portion of Jundallah [6]. They share similar views and goals. It's even been suggested that Jaish ul-Adl is the successor. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 02:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. No opinion about whether this is a notable topic, but the article as it is is not worth retaining. It is a newspaper-style account of episodes of people and groups fighting each other, with no attempt to explain how any of this supposedly fits into any larger conflict or indeed constitutes a discrete topic of discussion. We are not a news aggregator. Sandstein 20:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relistings and then some, there is no consensus for one particular action regarding the article. Per the discussion, while the album appears to meet criteria #2 of WP:NALBUMS, the depth of coverage about the topic to qualify a standalone article has been stated as being borderline and debatable. It was also stated that additional Belgian sources may be available. Of note is that per WP:NALBUMS, albums must meet basic notability criteria of having received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. As such, an album charting on a country's national music chart does not establish notability alone. Further discussion regarding sources, a merge, etc. can continue on the article's talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Songs of Innocence (Jasper Steverlinck album)

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

I'm not sure this one passes the WP:GNG, which is the criteria used at WP:NALBUMS. Sure the album topped the charts in Belgium for a handful of weeks, but I can't find any reliable sources providing coverage of the album sufficient for it to merit its own article. Google books [7] returns a handful of hits, but all appear to be a simple listing of the Belgian charts in Billboard and nothing more. Not for nothing, there does not appear to be an article on this album in either the Dutch or French Wikipedias. In the interest of full disclosure, I am nominating this for deletion only after seeing a move request on the talk page of the similarly named U2 album. -- Calidum 02:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. As it was a number one album in Belgium it's certainly notable. The consideration then is whether there is sufficient content for a standalone article or whether it should be covered in the article on the artist - either way we don't need these to come to AfD. It seems very likely that the album received sufficient coverage in Belgium to expand the article, if we know where to look for it. -- Michig ( talk) 08:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - as the nom says, he is nominating this for deletion only after seeing a move request on the talk page of the similarly named U2 album. and as User:Michig says as it was a number one album in Belgium it's certainly notable. So the AFD appears to purely for the purpose of presenting the new U2 album with a title contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), a guideline with which the nom disagrees per comment on the U2 album talk page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Please show me the significant coverage of the album that merits it having a standalone article. -- Calidum 15:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Coverage does exist, e.g. this, and this states that the album's success went beyond "topping the charts in Belgium for a handful of weeks" and actually topped the chart for 5 weeks and spent 41 weeks in the top 50, and a DVD of the same title was released. Whether there is enough to justify a standalone article is debatable (and for an an album released in 2003 offline sources are perhaps likely to exceed what can be found online), but the only real alternative is to merge to the artist on the article. I don't see any chance that this will be deleted outright. This should have been dealt with as a merge proposal. -- Michig ( talk) 16:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Here's two more examples of coverage from a search on the Belgian Google: [8], [9]. -- Michig ( talk) 16:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Merging is a possible outcome of any AFD. -- Calidum 17:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Michig, I'm not clear if you support leaving as a standalone or merging. If merged the infobox would be lost to mobile phone readers (who are the majority for pop articles apparently). Also if merged the rationale on the album cover jpg would need to be changed to avoid the jpg being lost. I'm not suggest that alternatively/additionally perhaps we could merge Songs of Innocence (U2 album) to U2 as it hasn't done as well as the Belgian album did.

With the amount of content that we have and could potentially add using the sources found so far I would lean towards merging this article, but if more is found it could be kept as a standalone article. That's a different issue to 'real world notability' which is clearly there for both albums. The U2 album has far too much content to be merged. -- Michig ( talk) 07:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Michig, as I said no one's seriously suggesting merging the U2 album. Am I wrong that merging an album into a discography means losing the infobox and album jpg? ... in any case I think a merger is now moot, I had a look at the 2 Dutch-language sources you provided and found 2 more long Dutch articles, currently they are just clip cited footnotes, but it would take little effort to expand the stub, and that's what expand stubs are for. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Calidum please note that even if your proposal here to delete succeeded per WP:NCM you would still not have acheived the object of removing "U2" from (U2 album) since WP:NCM does not distinguish between article content and standalone articles. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note that Talk:Songs of Innocence (U2 album) RM mentioned above has concluded with the decision that the U2 album is not primary topic over William Blake, nor the only album. In ictu oculi ( talk) 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Spent ages in Belgian charts as mentioned, was a number 1. I would argue it therefore fulfills notability per WP:MUSIC. JTdale ^Talk 11:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Jasper Steverlinck per WP:NALBUMS - "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". In the future, this article may be resurrected if enough reliably-sourced information is provided to create at least a Start Class article.
Quality over quantity, eh? Developing articles is far more respected than simply creating as many stubs as possible. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Bow Wow (manga)

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

~~Non-notable series AFAIK DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 06:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)~~ reply

The page has improved from the two sentence article it once was and I see no problem keeping it. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 07:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete -- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 07:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Search Bowwow Terry Yamamoto Foxy1219 ( talk) 08:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:GNG DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 09:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

True, we would need to know if any of the sources provided in the search can help the article are reliable and can help the article comply with WP:N. If you (Foxy129) could provide use with some specific sources to evaluate that would be helpful.-- 69.157.253.160 ( talk) 01:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Unsourced article with no indication of notability. Does not satisfy the basic notability criteria outlined at WP:GNG. -- DAJF ( talk) 02:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I add some sourse. Foxy1219 ( talk) 03:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Could you list some of them here? That way it can bs assessed if the sources sre reliable or not.-- 69.157.253.160 ( talk) 05:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Manga Updates is an scanlation indexing site and therefore not an appropriate source and Anime Vice is user edited and not usable either. Neither would show notability anyway. SephyTheThird ( talk) 10:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. It's got entries in both The Anime Encyclopedia and ANN. The title should be changed to Modern Dog Tales Bow Wow. Upload I get it now. Modern Dog Tales Bow Wow is the translated version of the anime. There isn't a good reason to have a separate article on the manga, which was never translated. Confabulationist ( talk) 12:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: ANN Encyclopedia section is not a RS, Confabulationist. I did find, however, some sourcing: at Google Books. Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 18:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

You know that you are linking to the same source that I already gave? It is a reference to the anime version, not to the manga. Confabulationist ( talk) 00:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: I'd recommend making a series page for the manga and the anime. I'm looking at the Japanese entry via Google Translate and it looks like the series was fairly well loved in Japan, as it spawned a 40 episode animated series, a theatrical film, and a Super Nintendo game. I'll try to merge this into the article, as that shows a pretty high notability threshold for Japanese manga that there were so many adaptations of the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. This is kind of troublesome: we don't really have any sources and given the common-ness of the title and the obvious language barrier, finding sources is fairly difficult. All I can really go on for notability are the various adaptations. If it was just that the series had an OAV or one film, I'd be inclined to say that we should delete the page. However what we have in this instance is a manga series that not only had a theatrical film (albeit a short one), but had an anime series on one of the most well-known Japanese television networks and a video game adaptation of the series. It's not Ranma 1/2 or anything, but this isn't really the norm for most manga series out there- especially manga series released before the current advances made it far cheaper and easier to produce animation and video games. The existence of these things shows me that this series enjoyed far more attention than some of the other manga series of the era and I'd be extremely, extremely surprised if it ended up that the manga had a TV series, film, and video game but never received substantial media attention. In this instance I'd say that the amount of adaptations gives the reasonable argument that these sources do exist but never made it on to the Internet. It's not the way I usually like to vote for inclusion on Wikipedia since I'm very much a "show me the sources" type of editor, but a 80s/90s manga series getting an animated adaptation, film, and a video game is pretty out of the norm for earlier manga series to the point that this in and of itself would show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - I'll admit, sources for this are hard to come by, even in Japanese. But the fact that it got an anime adaptation, let alone one that's 40 episodes long, is probably enough for it to gain notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 08:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: I don't give notability opinions, but I posted these at WT:ANIME and no one seems to have noticed: [10] [11] [12] Tezero ( talk) 02:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I saw them, I cant read reference 1, reference 2 can only be used as an external link as it is not reliable and reference 3 I also cant read. So of those three two are possibly good to use. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo

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

Per WP:BEFORE, I attempted to find reliable sources that give significant coverage of the subject, and what I found left me wanting. In my search I did not find non-primary or secondary reliable sources, which give the subject significant coverage; therefore the subject appears to fail WP:GNG. While the subject has been a journalist, the subject themselves has not been the primary topic of a reliable source that gives in-depth coverage of the subject. Looking at WP:AUTHOR, the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria in that notability guideline. The subject also does voiceover work, but does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NACTOR. Therefore not finding the subject meeting any of these notability guidelines, I propose that the article be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Subject not notable, many of the sections not attributed, some supporting links dead -- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 14:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Merge to Philosophy of the World. Consensus against keeping, no arguments against its use as a valid redirect query. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

My Pal Foot Foot

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

Not enough mainstream coverage, does not meet notability standards. StewdioMACK ( talk) 14:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: Seeing this here brings back memories of the "Philosophy of the World" LP, which has I think sufficient ongoing discussion in its own right, but not this particular song on the album. AllyD ( talk) 14:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge to Philosophy of the World - This one pains me. I'm finding a little bit of coverage that pays special attention to the song (rather than mentioning it in association with the band/album), e.g. CBSLocal (WXRT) and briefly discussed on NPR's Morning Edition (HighBeam link), but I've looked here, I've looked there, I've looked everywhere, oh foot foot why can't I find more sources about you. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete not notable or worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 22:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Philosophy of the World. Giant Snowman 19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ronny Douek

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

Delete, is not clear the person actually meets the notability policy. It reads more like a political career circle jerk article. Article is largely unsourced for a BLP the one source provided appears to be about something else Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 09:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 10:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 10:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep To be sure, the article is (or was), as nominator Hell in a Bucket says, poorly sourced and poorly organized in a self-promotional style. However, googling "Ronny Douek" even in Engligh immediately turns up substantive coverage of him founding both for- and non-for-profit organizations, and being in the leadership of major organizations. Deletion, as I understand it, is about whether a subject merits an article, as determined by coverage in secondary sources. This guy is clearly notabe, he just needs a better article. I added the first several articles about him to the article, which needs major edit. ShulMaven ( talk) 11:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete I made some edits to the article, but unfortunately I do not find strong sources for this person. The references that are on the article do not say much about him -- one is even about the architectural bona fides of a building he bought. Most of the others are mentions of him in short news articles. I turn up nothing substantial about him. LaMona ( talk) 05:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Tayo the Little Bus

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Only references are to YouTube and official sites. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak keep As someone who has been battling multiple crufters/vandalizers on this article for months, this show has some notability, but it has yet to really air in Western markets and looks unlikely to break through (definitely asking for some of our contributors on ko.wikipedia to help out here, if the nom could add that tag as a South Korean-interest article). It can be rescued, but only with more eyes getting it up to snuff. But without much access to the source material I can't fill it out much more than the character description list, where trying to keep out the fact that one of the anthropomorphic buses has stomach gas issues is among the things I have to deal with here. Nate • ( chatter) 19:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Are Australia and New Zealand not Western countries any more? It has been showing here on Pay TV from over a year. Are you someone from the US suffering Wikipedia:Systemic_bias? Wikipedia says of YouTube - Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_Myspace.2C_Facebook.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F: "However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher." The YouTube channel linked to is the official one from the production company (Iconix Entertainment) and therefore acceptable at least as a secondary source. Since this is a show for children, not adults, I think the admin who marked this for deletion is suffering from a lack of WP:NPOV? The YouTube channel shows that is is very popular with one episode having over 24 millions views. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about subjects that fewer than 10 people would care about. The article as I found it had very few references. I decided to seek them out and found that the show had an official YouTube channel and began adding them as links before Mdann52 section blanked the work I and others had done. When I reverted he then marked it for deletion! That comes across as childish (ironic really) and violation of Wikipedia:Civility and WP:DNB. Is he liked around here? Also after both his actions he didn't make a single statement in the Talk page of the article to explain or justify himself. The article when I came across it was a bit of a mess of poorly structured sentences and broken english, however details for the characters were well filled out by past contributors. I thought it would be fun to work on an article and improve it. Mdann52 has certainly made sure it was not fun and not worth my time if he continues to act like this -- Lonew8 ( talk) 05:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Lonew8: Maybe so, but the issue here is the article appears to fail WP:GNG, which official sites fail to show. We need 3rd party citations to demonstrate this. Also, just because a programme is airing does not make it notable. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 08:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Mdann52: I have found a third party Episode Guide for the show: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/tayo-the-little-bus/episodes/577643 So you want to integrate the information there into the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonew8 ( talk • contribs) 08:49, 3 November 2014‎
@ Lonew8: While I believe that tvguide.com is considered a reliable source, I don't think that it can be used to confer notability. What we really need here, is an article or interview that contains some kind of Production or Reception information. I'll look around though, and see if I can find anything. -- Jpcase ( talk) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - using youtube as a source of citations, original interest, not notable. -- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 22:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ until valid third party sources can be located to properly substantiate an article. This page has a very long history of vandalism and general misinformation and despite multiple requests going on several years now, there has yet to be a single reliable third party source presented which documents this subject? Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- Substantial changes have been made to improve the article. What to do with the character listing(s) is an editorial decision at this point. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 01:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - while sources in Korean might exist, none have ever been presented. There's one third-party source in the Korean article, but it's an interview in a publication that doesn't strike me as particularly reliable, and it doesn't discuss the show in any detail, either. Without reliable third-party sources that cover the show, the article is unsalvageable. Huon ( talk) 22:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep: I literally only had to go through the first page of Google search results before finding this [13] article from the Korean government's official website, this [14] article from the Wall Street Journal, and this [15] article from the Korean newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun. Meanwhile, Google News returned this [16] article from The Korean Bizwire and this [17] article from a Vietnamese news site. Note that all of these are English-language sources. Please, let's try to do at least a minimal amount of research before nominating an article for deletion or even casting a vote in a deletion nomination. -- Jpcase ( talk) 22:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

What do all of those sources combined say about the series? Very little. There's a strong indication that the show is indeed notable, but the current article would have to be rewritten almost entirely, and we'll need better sources than those. It wouldn't be more difficult to write an all-new article than to try and salvage the current one, and until someone actually does the effort, we need not keep the current version. Huon ( talk) 00:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Huon: Why would the article have to be "rewritten almost entirely"? The content already contained in the article looks fine to me. The character list should maybe be trimmed, and I'm sure that a few changes could be made here or there, but nothing seems drastically wrong with the article. I have to disagree that deleting the article and letting it be recreated at a later date would be just as good as trying to salvage the current one. Not everyone is going to be interested in trying to create a full-fledged quality article from scratch, but a variety of different editors are likely to make small improvements over the course of time - they won't be able to do this if the article no longer exists. -- Jpcase ( talk) 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Jpcase: Thank you for your work on finding more sources and cleaning up the article. I stopped looking or working on the article after Mdann52 marked the article for deletion. No-one wants to put in time of something that might just be deleted on someone's whim. I explained in my post why it was marked for deletion: "[I] .. began adding them as links before Mdann52 section blanked the work I and others had done. When I reverted he then marked it for deletion! That comes across as childish (ironic really) and violation of Wikipedia:Civility and WP:DNB." The problem with some voices here is a lack of an neutral viewpoint. This is a show for toddlers. Maybe need a few toddlers editing Wikipedia, and not just people who act like toddlers? - Lonew8 ( talk) 14:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Lonew8: WP:NPA may be worth a read, unless you can show how I'm acting like a toddler. I nominated the article for deletion as notability is not shown, as per my rational at the start, not to bite you or anything. A long list of characters, meanwhile, is not sutable for Wikipedia, full stop. I was considering nominating the article for deletion even without the extra content you added; WP:N is a policy, not a guideline, so nominating for deletion is entirely appropriate. @ Jpcase: I did do WP:BEFORE, but my searches failed to find anything significant; However, my knowledge of Korean sources are poor, so bringing to AfD is often the best way to have notability reviewed wider. IMO, from what I saw it was not notable, but if it is, then I'm sure the result will reflect this. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Mdann52: Did I call you a toddler? I said of your actions "That comes across as childish" and I stand by that. You blanked most of the article, I reverted, in response you marked it for deletion without a single comment on the article's Talk page. That appears to be childish to me. You have said "A long list of characters, meanwhile, is not sutable [sic] for Wikipedia, full stop." on that basis you should go the article Yo_Gabba_Gabba! and blank the section on "Regular segments". The list is long and also unreferenced. Plenty of TV show articles on Wikipedia have long lists of minor characters. They are relevant to the show, so relevant to an article on the show. Check out List of past Coronation Street characters! Will you mark that article for deletion?

@ Huon: I've started to incorporate the information from those references into the article. Let me know what you think, but to me, it seems highly notable that the series was tied into a successful government campaign and has influenced prominent South Korean politicians. @ Mdann52: I'll take you at your word that you looked for refs before nominating the article for deletion, and I agree that this kind of process can be helpful for articles. All the same, it seems strange to me that none of the above-mentioned refs showed up in your search. They've been around for several months, and as I said, were contained on the first page of search results. I'll leave it at that though. It's not in my interest to criticize anyone over this. @ Lonew8: I sympathize with you, as its never fun to have your work reverted or nominated for deletion. I had multiple articles put through this process in my early days on Wikipedia. But it happens, and as Mdann52 has explained, this article didn't meet the Notability Guidelines at the time. It probably would have been better had Mdann52 discussed things with you on a talk page first, but let's just try to move on from that. Whether Mdann52's actions were "childish" or not, keeping things civil is always the best way to go. The article is referenced now. I strongly feel that notability has been demonstrated. That's what is important. -- Jpcase ( talk) 15:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

P.S. Has anyone here actually seen the show? I'm reworking the "Characters" section, and there are quite a lot of supporting characters listed. Are all of these necessary? We only need to mention characters that recur regularly throughout the series, not characters that have only appeared once or twice. -- Jpcase ( talk) 15:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Jpcase: You are not able to watch it on YouTube or don't have HuluPlus? Watch it with a child like I did if you can :-). Based on memory of seeing the first season twice, I have organised the Supporting Character section by importance. Are we able to reference fan wikis, or don't they meet WP guideline (from memory they don't)? Lonew8 ( talk) 01:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Lonew8: I'm afraid that I won't have the time to actually watch the series myself. The exact order in which the supporting characters are named isn't crucial, but do you remember whether all of the characters listed appear at least more than twice? That should be the cut-off I think, except in cases where a character that only appears once or twice is exceptionally significant for some reason - e.g. Cito's mentor Bubba. As for fan wikis, no they don't meet the guidelines, nor does pretty much any other type of fan site. -- Jpcase ( talk) 01:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - Much improved article. Artw ( talk) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep — current citations clearly show cultural relevance and notability. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. While noting that there is the possibility that the subject might meet WP:CORP, given !votes, one relist and after taking a look at the article I think it's better if we think of this as a possible clean start with no prejudice to re-creation via AFC by someone who can write non-promotional prose § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Gwava

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

This looks rather like an advert for a software selling company. No references and an apparently dead external link. Peridon ( talk) 20:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: Highbeam turns up a lot of press releases but nothing that appears to be significant 3rd party coverage. Their product set is mentioned in this 2013 Gartner report, though only as one of the other vendors who did not meet the assessment inclusion criteria. AllyD ( talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - can we get some expert opinion so this one? Bearian ( talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete barring better sources being found. I scanned Google Books, where there are some references to the product, but no in-depth coverage. There may be some, however, and I will be happy to look at any sources that might go toward evidencing meeting GNG. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 07:07, 10 November 2014 TomStar81 (talk | contribs) deleted page AvaHoma (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: All material copy/pasted from http://www.avahoma.com/bio.html) czar ♔ 12:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

AvaHoma

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

Autobiography largely sourced to her or her publishers, low-level achievements, not clear to me why she merits an article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

CSD deletion of copyright grounds, article was copied in its entirety from http://www.avahoma.com/bio.html TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Grenk

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

Unremarkable ink vendor. Other than a few press releases, I couldn't find any major news reports or similar stuff to establish its notability. Furthermore, a Google search reveals that the subject has been spamvertised on various websites in an attempt to gain traction on the web. Blake Gripling ( talk) 05:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, Non notable vendor wothout any verified claims. Shashanksinghvi334 ( talk) 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete I don't know what an ink vendor would need to do to be notable, but this one exhibits no notability at all. LaMona ( talk) 23:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep under criterion #1, advocating a course of action other than deletion. I think the nominator was acting in good faith but without clear understanding of guidelines. Hopefully, at such time as he is unblocked, he will seek out guidance on how to proceed before going ahead rashly. — C.Fred ( talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Red Forman, Eric Forman, Kitty Forman, Jackie Burkhart, Midge and Bob Pinciotti, Donna Pinciotti, Steven Hyde, Fez (That '70s Show) & Leo (That '70s Show)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fez (That '70s Show)

Fez (That '70s Show) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Leo (That '70s Show) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Multiple page issues that are not getting fixed and fails WP:GNG

All pages issues date back as far as 2009 with nothing being done about them and they all fail WP:GNG. DeletespagesthatfailGNG ( talk) 05:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect I actually think the pages should just be redirected to the main page. DeletespagesthatfailGNG ( talk) 05:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Clearly a full set of "Bad Faith" nominations by the SPA and its IP. The articles do meet WP:GNG and there are article with issues dating years before 09 that still meet the relevant criteria. MarnetteD| Talk 06:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Notice to participants: DeletespagesthatfailGNG ( talk · contribs) has been blocked for 3RR violations, and may or may not have a UAA block pending. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

It's worth noting that since being blocked, DeletespagesthatfailGNG has reverted to editing as an IP in violation of his block so don't be surprised if a 50.121.x.x IP votes here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. @ DeletespagesthatfailGNG, are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommend redirection as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom and propose the merge on the article's talk page. You can list what may be controversial merges at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers (or otherwise just try it yourself WP:BOLDly). Have a good one czar ♔ 12:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Becky's Fund

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

This charity doesn't even seem to be a major group in its home city of Washington, DC, much less anywhere else. This article was probably written by a marketing company - see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#SavvyMedia Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. The article as written borders on CSD A7. A search for reliable sources failed to find coverage to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Passing mentions and local coverage only. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete- No indication of significance. Shashanksinghvi334 ( talk) 04:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Carly Henderson

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

After removing references that were irrelevant or fluff, I'm left with two good references and two I can't access. For potential notability, I see an interview with Joe Biden and a daytime Emmy nomination, which is very thin and a borderline case in my view. The article was probably written by a marketing company, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#SavvyMedia Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete The two references that are accessible are unbelievably weak. The 'interview' one is a single paragraph that has her name in it. The PDF shows that she was one of about ten producers on a show that was nominated for an Emmy. Not notable. LaMona ( talk) 23:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Not yet notable. A nomination for an Emmy is not evidence for notability. The work does not appearto obviously justify an article, and the referencesare weak. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles ( talk) 06:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Retargeter

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

Company is almost certainly not notable. Article was probably written by a marketing company, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#SavvyMedia Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete stub that fails WP:COMPANY - few passing mentions, plus TechCrunch, which I think has a mission of writing about any and all startups, and which I am quickly loosing faith in as a reliable source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 06:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dreams for Kids

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

This article only superficially has a lot of sources. The sources are all very low-quality, and some, I suspect, don't even mention the organization. The article was probably written a marketing company, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#SavvyMedia Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - lousy sourcing from trivial sources; actual hard evidence of notability for this local charity is simply lacking. Being written by a paid spammer is not the kiss of death, but it does usually mean (as here) low quality of writing and sources alike, in a Wikipedia context. -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, references are either from the subject's website or of poor reliability/depth of coverage. Becky Sayles ( talk) 06:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Alexis Levine

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

Owner of a company that is almost certainly not notable. The article was written by employees of her company, one of them removed the Prod tag. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Almost a speedy on basis of A7. Owning a company is mot a realistic claim of importance unels the company is truly notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete and salt 2 primary sources, 1 trivial fails GNG. Instead of having to watchlist these articles, salt and get a proper discussion before recreation. Widefox; talk 10:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. LaMona ( talk) 00:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and DGG. Becky Sayles ( talk) 06:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Pat Korte

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, minor character (if that much) active in a barely notable organization. Drmies ( talk) 02:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization). He received a few sentences of coverage in the New York Times, and a few passing mentions elsewhere. Leading figures of the 1960s group of that same name are often notable. The revived group? Not so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 03:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect is a generous solution for this person, but I see no reason why not. LaMona ( talk) 23:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization). I could not find anything beyond a few passing mentions. A redirect is a legitimate outcome though. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Lastrego. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Aladdin's Adventures

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

Article is unsourced and doesn't indicate notability or existence. I looked up "Aladdin" and "RAI 2" together and found Aladdin (TV series) as the only cartoon result, which did aired on RAI 2. I cannot find any evidence of an Aladdin animated series from Italy. TheGGoose ( talk) 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: It looks like the show does indeed exist. I managed to find this [18] Italian website, which talks about a show called Aladdin's Adventures. It's clearly different from the Disney series, and the broadcasting rights are held by RaiTrade, which I assume is an affiliate of Rai 2. There very well may be notable coverage for the series in Italian-language sources, though I doubt that anything exists in English. I'll do a little more research and then get back to you with a vote. -- Jpcase ( talk) 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Lastrego: Okay, so we actually have an article for the show's production studio, Lastrego & Testa Multimedia, here on the English Wikipedia. That article has a paragraph devoted to Aladdin's Adventures, and goes into a bit of detail, discussing the show's characters and animation design. Although no references are used, I wouldn't be at all surprised if several exist, again, even if they are only in Italian. If anyone ever feels compelled to put in the work of hunting those down and creating a quality article for this show, then they can do that. But Mr. Lama (who created the article this time around) clearly isn't interested in rescuing his work, as I see you've notified him of the AfD nomination. There's nothing in here to merge, so I suggest simply turning this into a redirect toward the article on the production company. I noticed that there was also a 1978 Indian film called Adventures of Aladdin, so we may want to add a Redirect template to the top of the Lastrego page, mentioning that film. -- Jpcase ( talk) 01:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Thank you for finding this television show online. Looks like this won't turn into a deletion if sources are found. TheGGoose ( talk) 02:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 03:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Bizbell Academy

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

No indication of notability, can't find significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. The organization's own web site doesn't work. ... discospinster _talk 19:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: probably a tuition academy. Doesn't qualify for WP:NHS. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 20:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 03:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete With the putative organization's Facebook page having given way to spam, I think it is unlikely that further sources, which would be necessary to demonstrate notability, will be forthcoming. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 20:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Joey Yung. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ten Most Wanted (album)

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

Unreferenced for nearly five years. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Joey Yung, as per the guidelines at WP:NALBUM. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources that would confirm this album notability enough for a stand-alone article (although if someone comes up with some good Cantonese sources and a half-decent translation I could be swayed). Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 03:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have fixed the interwiki link, and you can now see the corresponding Chinese article, which lists 5 awards. Olivier ( talk) 13:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - notability has to be judged from Awards. User:Dylanfromthenorth, what Chinese print sources for any Chinese album are online? In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- No idea, I don't read Cantonese, I was saying if anyone comes up with some I could be swayed towards a keep. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 04:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  - So here is a half-decent translation of the Chinese article : [19]. Olivier ( talk) 01:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    - There are no sources in the Chinese article - what I'm after are sources that prove the notability of the album as per WP:NALBUM. They can be online, offline, English, Cantonese, Urdu, Klingon - it doesn't matter. But without sources there shouldn't be an article. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      - WP:NOREFS is a good read. "Simply having no references on the page may not be grounds for deletion; you will have to demonstrate that none can ever likely be found". Olivier ( talk) 19:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        I haven't advocated deletion, I've advocated a redirect. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 19:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        I too didn't nominate it for not having refs, rather for apparently not meeting WP:N and WP:NALBUMS. If you have refs, supply them. I couldn't find any. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        Refs would be in Cantonese, and that's certainly not the best place to ask for them. My Cantonese is poor and my Klingon nonexistent. I don't believe that deletion or a mere redirect would in this case improve the state of Wikipedia. But a merger would: material from the article could be merged into Joey Yung discography for instance. A good example of such a full discography is surprisingly the corresponding French article. If someone offers to move the content of the "Ten Most Wanted" article to "Joey Yung discography", then I am perfectly fine with that. If the suggestion is to delete or hide (mere redirect) the content, then I would rather see the article stay for the time being. Olivier ( talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 02:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc 21 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations

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

Not sure what the **** is going on with this article. I declined an improper CSD. But this has existed for 9 years and has virtually no content. Extensive edit history, yet nothing here. Given the long existence of this article, CSD A3 is not appropriate. Rather, I will take to AfD and see if it is even WORTH trying to salvage. Notability seems dubious at best. Safiel ( talk) 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment -- The article is indeed on a notable substance but am not sure whether to vote for a keep or for a delete. May be adding some cites, we could save it from extinction.. The Herald 12:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
- May be now I can hit a Keep since here is much needed improvement in the article as a whole (forget the size). Abecedare is right. ICSE of the most prestigious one, and I had it till ISC.-- The Herald 12:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep or allow recreation if someone ever writes a stub for this that would pass A7. As near as I can tell from the three book sources I added to the article, and the several more available, this organization oversees a goodly number of schools in India as well as administers a semiannual examination within those schools. Boards of Education in India is also in dire need of someone who could actually write about the topic. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 01:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 02:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep as per @ Joe Decker: — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep as undoubtedly notable, though the article is in poor shape. Quick background: In India's K-12 education system, there are two certification/graduations stages: Class X and Class XII (the latter being equivalent to high school graduation in the West). The certification exams for the two stages are conducted either by the respective state board, or a handful of national boards of which CBSE and ISCE are the most prominent, and arguably, most prestigious ones. (Besides conducting the exams, the boards serve as accreditation bodies for the affiliated schools) Abecedare ( talk) 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep This board of education oversees a large number of schools in India. Sources indicate that it meets the notability criteria. The article needs improvement and not deletion.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 11:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is not the strongest, but many reliable sources have been found and none of the respondents supported a delete. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Mark Huberman

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

Effectively unsourced BLP, as the only given source is just a passing mention of Huberman being an actor. The Banner talk 12:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Yes, the article is bad. No, that doesn't make it deletion worth. Please google first. Immediately found articles in Irish Independent 1 and 2, Evening Herald, entertainment.ie, HispanicBusiness. Paragraph in The Mirror, coverage in SheMazing. JTdale ^Talk 12:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 02:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak keep I admit that I am not sure exactly how to gauge notability of local stage actors, since they are usually mainly known locally - in his case Dublin. There is a page that lists 13 plays (no starring roles, AFAI can tell) and the same number of TV and Film roles -- all less than major. He was in 5 (or 7, depending on the source) episodes of Band of Brothers, but again in a non-major role. There are local newspaper interviews, and other coverage, as listed above. The article definitely needs work but it is only a month old, so leaving a "needs improvement" banner and giving it some time seems like a good idea. LaMona ( talk) 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Silay. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Silay South Elementary School

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

Elementary schools are not automatically notable, and I find no indication that this particular school meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Silay per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most unusual or noteworthy elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite ( talk) 07:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep The school having been constructed in 1919 already qualifies it as an important cultural property under Article III Sec. 5 of the National Cultural Heritage Act of the Philippines. And is therefore notable.-- RioHondo ( talk) 13:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. The school is founded 1919. The question is: Does the school has a building that dates back 1919 or atleast built 50 years ago to qualify under the Cultural Heritage Act. If it does, then the article must have a big chunk on its built heritage. -- Carlojoseph14 ( talk) 07:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

At least the Silay Heritage website does make that claim with a picture of the old structure made of wood.-- RioHondo ( talk) 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 02:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Silay per longstanding precedent as documented at WP:OUTCOMES. I don't see anything that makes this primary school particularly noteworthy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Egoboo (video game)

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

Procedural nomination. Declined WP:PROD as the article has been nominated before - see the fairly inconclusive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egoboo (computer game). Views welcome, having regard for those expressed in that earlier debate. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus ( talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. I've heard of this, but sources are pretty thin. In a WP:VG/RS custom Google search, I found this Polish review, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment. A quick google search provided me with these reviews: Zefz ( talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

   * 
Blog from roguelikedeveloper
   * 
Linux dev center
   * 
Software Informer

Comment. I think one of the reasons this is up here, is because Egoboo was really popular in early 2000s. It was one of the first big 3D games that was open-source and free, which was also a part of the Linux repository (most freeware games around that time seemed to be simple 2D platformer games and most were not open source). I can't find the sources for this claim however, it seems they are removed from the internet. Zefz ( talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. Unless offline or non-English sources are found, all available sourcing on this topic is sparse:

This is not nearly enough to substantiate a full article. However, if the Linux Dev Center review (O'Reilly Media) counts as reliable, there should be enough for at least a worthy stubicle. I'm not convinced that the Blogspot review is reliable. czar ♔ 20:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Prod nominator. If the only hit on WP:VG/RS is this short entry, it doesn't seem to suffice. However, Linux Dev rev presented by Czar seems decent, but I'd like to hear from VG/RS experts before reconsidering my vote. One decent review doesn't seem like much for notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 05:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 02:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. The development of the game is currently halted, which is why there aren't any new reviews and only older. Should the development be resumed, so would the reviews. The game was sufficiently notable at the time:

   * 
http://archive09.linux.com/articles/22382
   * 
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2003/03/13/egoboo.html
   * 
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2003/03/27/egoboo_interview.html
   * 
http://roguelikedeveloper.blogspot.com/2008/10/review-egoboo.html
   * 
http://www.tigsource.com/2009/06/06/classic-egoboo/
   * 
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/11/04/egoboo-is-a-fun-3d-rogue-like-game-for-windows-mac-and-linux/
   * 
http://dark.dark-gaming.net/?page_id=216

And that's just English sources. -- ConCelFan ( talk) 07:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Linux.com looks like it was freelance at the time with an edit policy, Switched.com is owned by Cnet, and I said above that Linux Dev Center might be okay, but I'm not sure that rest have the hallmarks of reliability. (This said, the few that exist should be enough for the general notability guideline.) czar ♔ 16:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

roguelikedeveloper is Andrew Doull of PCG Wiki and Roguelike Radio.

TIGSource is an indie game journalism website by a group of indie developers, a particularly prominent member of which is Derek Yu of Spelunky fame.

The last source, no established notability.

-- ConCelFan ( talk) 07:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Even with those credentials, I don't see how those sites are reliable without some noted expertise in the topic or editorial oversight czar ♔ 14:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

On reliability of TIGSource website:

               * 
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/tigsource/
               * 
http://venuspatrol.com/tag/tigsource-devlog/

-- ConCelFan ( talk) 21:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - per Piotrus - the sourcing is just atrocious, both in the article, and everything presented here so far. Not enough reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. Block just under the Relisting. -- ConCelFan ( talk) 21:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's the strongest case, but between the four that I listed (from VGRS search), and Linux Dev Center, Switched, and Linux.com, shouldn't we be good? It's enough to cover a reception, development, and gameplay in fair enough detail czar ♔ 00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

ConcelFan - Yeah, I saw them. They're all very obscure. I see no reason that these obscure blogs like "Dark Gaming" meet the definition of a WP:RS. Czar - All of the sources are rather "borderline", or not discussing the subject in any sort of significant detail. "Inside Mac Games" or "Switched" are only a few sentences on the actual subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I've admitted "Dark Gaming" not to have an established notability but for others, it's either sufficiently notable website or author. From the block's listing there are: 2 interviews and 4 reviews (last one not counted). -- ConCelFan ( talk) 07:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't subscribe to your rationales for others either though. For example, take "Rougelike Developer". Your argument is that this self-published blogspot is reliable because the author, of who you've used a wordpress to identify his reliability, runs a wiki and a podcast? That's way off base as to how one would identify a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid. There are minuscule amounts of Roguelike-covering websites out there. And there still isn't a person to have an article on Wikipedia that is considered a Roguelike expert, from what I can tell. Considering the merits, that would be him. But finding coverage on Roguelike-covering websites and promoters is even harder. -- ConCelFan ( talk) 22:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, self-published sources can be useful for certain facts. No, the above blog posts aren't that kind of SPS, and even if they were, they wouldn't prove notability, which requires editorial distance: coverage in secondary/independent and reliable sources. I'm not sure this warrants further discussion. The Linux.com and Switched links are debatably acceptable, good finds. The other new links are no bueno, at least for AfD's sake czar ♔ 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

You missed my point entirely. I'm criticizing that you're arguing that a blogspot is reliable because you identified the writer in an interview from a wordpress, and said he's reliable because he has a Wiki and does his own podcast. The fact that you think that this demonstrates reliability shows that your understanding of Wikipedia's definition of reliable is fundamentally flawed. The argument is wrong on so many levels. Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

If you can find Roguelike-covering websites and promoters that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia, I'm all ears. -- ConCelFan ( talk) 07:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I can't. But that's a rationale for a "delete" !vote, not for using unreliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Found an academic mention: http://people.ict.usc.edu/~marsella/publications/IVA-73-Camera.pdf. I agree that most of the sources are borderline, but I also think that they have enough stuff together to make an article—I'd do it if I had the time. czar ♔ 01:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Walter Quintus

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

Despite appearances, this is wholly unreferenced as far as I can see. I have checked over 20 of the refs and not one contained a mention of Walter Quintus. Fails WP:MUSIC . It also has a vanishing small content when the list of supposed collaborators is removed. I suspect it is a hoax and could probably be a subject for a speedy deletion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I checked all of the refs and there is always my name mentioned. At the first glance you may not see it (since often there is much text and many names). But when you type „cmd F“ on your Mac (I don’t know the equivalent on a PC) you always find me! Maybe this kind of sources is not appropriate. But what else should I cite? I was asking this before (sent an email to ‘Enigmaman’), but never got an answer. Walter Quintus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wquintus ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I just read the term ‘hoax’, so I would like to answer again:

I did cite some names of other artists I am/was working with in my life. In September I received an email from Enigmamsg who asked me to stop adding unsourced cruft. This was my ‘final warning’. I don’t consider those names ‘cruft’, but that’s another question. I answered by email asking what kind of sources he meant. Didn’t get an answer. So I did add sources for each name. A few hours later I received an invitation for this discussion.

I know lots of artists who are editing their appearances on Wikipedia. And why should they not? They obviously know better than anyone else what’s right or wrong with their biographies, whats’s true or false with their histories, careers etc. If anybody suspects a promotional, commercial background in this, that’s totally wrong. My work, and the work of most of my friends (Jazz music, experimental jazz, world music etc.), is committed to art! You may exclude commercial aspects (sales promotion) or whatever, since their is no ‘market’ for this kind of music. It’s difficult enough to survive with this - which is true even with some of the ‘bigger’ names. Me for example, more than half of my life I’m helping young artists who don’t have any budget to realize and produce their music. I help artists in other countries to make music of their tradition survive which is hundreds of years old, which otherwise would disappear from this planet. And so on… So what kind of sources do I need to add? Should I mention letters from the Turkish state (for example) in which they make pretty clear that they don’t have any interest in letting us record music from the Ottoman Empire?Or should I cite phone calls from musicians, who are well known today, asking me to produce their music? Or is it enough to name the concerning records/CDs? Or order numbers, too?

And: it’s not my fault that the article has a vanishing small content. Someone has taken out the biography which was written by Eric Watson (an American jazz-pianist, who lives in Paris) and Mark Nauseef (American drummer, who lives in Hamburg). What can I do?

Walter Quintus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wquintus ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

*Comment The most cursory check would have shown that Quintus has indeed contributed to a large amount of recorded music. Why here he is mentioned by the BBC, no less [20]. The problem is that music production is a team effort; although his name can easily be found in credits, and plenty will have been written about recordings he took part in, we so far lack citations to impartial published writings about Quintus as an individual, showing his notability through factual information and critical evaluation. Assuming that the user Wquintus is indeed the artist, he needs to be aware that by continuing to edit an article about himself he risks flouting our policies about "conflict of interest" and "original research" : Noyster (talk), 17:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

*Comment I'd say that this more than "flouting our policies about "conflict of interest" and "original research"!! This looks like a direct violation. I'm going to assume that Quintus is not aware of WP policies and therefore wasn't aware of these policies when he created the page. The page, unfortunately, is pretty much devoid of content, consisting mainly of links to the names of people. I would say that it is in every way NOT an encyclopedic article. The only solution I see, assuming that there is content to be contributed, is to delete everything but the one line of text and start over, calling it a stub. However, Quintus must understand that it is not appropriate for him to edit the article. The survival of this article depends on a (as yet unknown) interested editor who will take it on. If no one comes forward, then the stub can be deleted. LaMona ( talk) 19:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

It should be noted, though, that previous versions did include a biographical section. The more valid objection to the article would be that the biography was unsourced and not written neutrally : Noyster (talk), 09:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 02:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. I'm gonna ignore any conflict of interest aspects of this other than to say that if it's good content, reliably sourced, and neutrally written, I'm pretty relaxed about who's added it. The only consideration here is notability. I've had a good ol' look for some significant coverage in reliable sources (which is the metric we use), and found nothing that meets either the general notability guideline or the guideline for music. Passing mentions don't cut it I'm afraid. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. We are, as is correctly pointed out, not the news. Retitling the article removes some of the concerns but not all--and honestly, one wonders who could call an article "Murder of..." when no murder is proven yet and the investigation is ongoing. At any rate, that the GNG appears to be met is not that relevant (it was a noteworthy death, noteworthy for the news); what is relevant is that such a death needs to have lasting consequents of some kind or another, and this is not yet proven, obviously. Drmies ( talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Murder of Netanel Arami

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

By reading the sources it is clear that it is not sure that this is even was a murder; it could have been an accident. But this is already listed in category "Terrorist incidents in Israel in 2014"! This is plainly absurd. Huldra ( talk) 21:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

If you object to a link, take it to talk. A link is not an article. Nor is it a reason to start an AFD. ShulMaven ( talk) 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Article is about a death while rappelling. The family and friends suspected foul play and raised a very public fuss. Forcing the police to investigate. Investigation revealed that the rope had been cut. Victim in Jewish, co-workers are Arabs. All of this played out in headlines. Politicians are using it (today) to claim that police are not sufficiently aggressive in in investigating possible Lone wolf (terrorism) in this and other cases, and for all the usual reasons that politicians use.... As the article says the investigation is ongoing. So are the headlines. ShulMaven ( talk) 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, and while the "investigations are ongoing", you have already placed this in the category "Terrorist incidents in Israel in 2014". This is absurd. Huldra ( talk) 23:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep This topic has been covered a great deal in the news and is definitely worthy of an article. Disagreeing with a category seems more like a topic to be brought to talk rather than to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 November 2014‎ (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - per WP:GNG which is covered. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 07:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete of course. About half a million people are murdered every year, why does this "maybe" deserve a page? The answer is given by the article creator above: "Victim in [sic] Jewish, co-workers are Arabs". Enough of this. Zero^talk 09:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Answer: because police handling of this murder became a political issue and coverage of that issue in reliable sources has been extensive. ShulMaven ( talk) 12:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

You created a page whose very name grossly violates WP:BLP (no murder has been proved against those suspected), against the memorialising guideline. You even added his children's names and his wife's pregnancy in order to evoke sympathy, and added it to a terrorism category without sufficient cause to make sure we got your point. Your "political issue" argument is nonsense: politicians making statements about a case don't make it a political case. Zero^talk 23:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

According to Haaretz, "police investigators noticed that the cable he was tied to had been deliberately cut and decided to open a murder investigation. The only other people in the vicinity at the time of Arami's death were Palestinian workers from the territories, so Shin Bet security officials also got involved. A gag order was placed on the investigation's details." [21] Shin Bet related murder investigations involve tighter gag orders than other types of murder, see, for example, Murder of Shelly Dadon, a case regularly compared to this one in the Israeli press. ShulMaven ( talk) 01:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:EVENT/ WP:NOTNEWS. It happened a month and a half ago and coverage appears to have ceased; it doesn't have the persistence necessary to satisfy the notability guidelines. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Except WP:NOTTEMPORARY public outcry does not need to have "persistence" to be WP:N. ShulMaven ( talk) 19:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

There also is a gag order on the investigation so there is nothing the news can report on right now. - Galatz ( talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - as min, till the investigation's finish. -- Igorp_lj ( talk) 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree with User:Zero0000. Not sure how this is notable. Thousands of people die every year. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 00:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - As of now, its plainly notable, because its a subject of active political debate. Maybe revisit this down the road and see if anyone remembers this; I suspect it will turn out to not be notable in the long run, but six weeks is not enough. Djcheburashka ( talk) 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Relist note: I would strongly recommend that opinions going forward engage with the specifics of WP:EVENT. Thank you. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 01:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

For ease of reference, here's what I think is the key quote from WP:EVENT: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Djcheburashka ( talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 03:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ramón Agüero

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

Non-notable retired minor league pitcher. Nothing to suggest he passes GNG. Wizardman 00:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails GNG.-- Yankees10 01:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per lack of notability. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 01:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable minor league player. ...William 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per lack of notability. Spanneraol ( talk) 05:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per above. Alex ( talk) 07:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Alex ( talk) 07:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

[1] ttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/nib

[1]

Retractable pen (article renamed from Pen clicking)

Red Forman, Eric Forman, Kitty Forman, Jackie Burkhart, Midge and Bob Pinciotti, Donna Pinciotti, Steven Hyde, Fez (That '70s Show) & Leo (That '70s Show)

Retractable pen (article renamed from Pen clicking)

Red Forman, Eric Forman, Kitty Forman, Jackie Burkhart, Midge and Bob Pinciotti, Donna Pinciotti, Steven Hyde, Fez (That '70s Show) & Leo (That '70s Show)

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook