Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 June	2 July >

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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NASRAC

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

PROD removed by IP without comment. This article was twice declined at AfC, both times with the comment "submission is unsourced or contains only unreliable sources". At the time, the only sources were to the gaming group's own website and forum, and that remains the case - in fact, most of them only link to the root nasrac.com website. There is zero evidence of notability, and no sources to establish notability after a search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 1 July 2013 (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) 00:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. Andrew³²⁷ 13:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third party coverage, fails the WP:GNG. All these charts and history sections probably just belong on their own website (the only reference that seems to be used anyways), as they seem to have no importance or context outside of it... Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems clear amidst the fragmented discussion below. I can provide the information here if anyone does look into merging. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AO-222

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

There's a wikia page on a Nikonov_AO-222, which does show a gun called Nikonov AS (AO-222) in some museum. The Nikonov AS that was actually submitted to official trials (pictured in Monetchikov, Sergei (2005). История русского автомата [The History of Russian Assault Rifle] (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineers and Signal Corps. ISBN 5-98655-006-4. Monetchikov, p. 194) looks well-enough like that Wikia-page prototype, except it's fed from the bottom, not from the right side. The Polish source (pl:Nowa Technika Wojskowa) says this right-fed gun was "prototype 4" of the AS. Anyway, this AO-222 doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own page, because it was just an early factory prototype of the AN-94, not even the Nikonov AS that was submitted for army trials. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got myself a copy of the 2002/3 Polish magazine. There are a whole bunch of pictures of the early prototypes of the AN-94; even those by Nikonov look pretty different from the AN-94, e.g. the first two of his prototypes (called NA-2 and NA-4) were bullpup designs. And after prototype 4 (AO-222), there are pictures with five more Nikonov prototypes (labeled 5-9 by the Polish source, all with different original tags like WS-229, PU-192, OK-158, MA-49, or MA-50. A coupe more PA-33 and 6P33 are mentioned as AS[M] prototype 10 and 11, but with no pictures.) All pretty interesting info, but I don't see why a separate article is needed for each one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm officially including NA-2 and NA-4 in this nomination, for the same reason: factory prototypes of Nikonov (NS, eventually N-94), that don't need a separate page, lulzy picture notwithstanding. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argh: People who !vote do not seem to parse this far down my nomination, and/or do not express an opinion about these, so they should probably be dealt with separately. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to use plural

Ansh666 17:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Ansh666 22:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that AS-1, which was added here, is simply the unofficial name of the first prototype of the AS series leading to AN-94; this gun was given the ad-hoc number of prototype number 3 in the Polish source; there is a table at the end of the 2002/4 magazine article which makes this clear. I can see a case for a separate page for the NA-2 and NA-4 combined perhaps, because they need somewhat different categories of Category:Bullpup firearms and Category:Bullpup rifles, although they haven't even been added to those... After looking at some guidelines, it seems that additional categories can be added to redirects, as described in Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category, so [desirable] categories alone are not a reason to retain the NA-2 and NA-4 pages in their current form. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main sources of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirrors. All of which are based on a single caption photograph of a prototype rifle from an unknown source. The photograph itself is also appears to be close up of the the right side of the receiver, it could be anything. There is simply no way of knowing if the information is correct. No matter, even if the information is correct the AO-222 appears to be just one of 100,000's of dead-end prototype firearms and does not meet Wiki notability requirements --RAF910 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all fail WP:GNG per above. Ansh666 07:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the NA-2 and NA-4 I also vote for deletion as they are not notable and certainly not deserving of their own pages. Both are dead end prototypes. Both articles consist of only two sentences. If the Armalite AR-15, a real production rifle that evolved into the M16 and semi-auto Colt AR-15 does not merit its own page, then the NA-2 and NA-4 most certainly do not.--RAF910 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten a single stub, Nikonov NA-2 and NA-4 about both of these with the available information, which is a bit more than what was present when I nominated them for deletion. It should be possible to merge it to AN-94 at some point, but the target article is rather sketchy right now, so there's hardly room for the additional infobox. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge the NA-2 and the NA-4 with the AN-94 that would be fine with me. However, the NA-2 and NA-4 are not notable enough to have their own article. As, stated above, "If the Armalite AR-15, a real production rifle that evolved into the M16 and semi-auto Colt AR-15 does not merit its own page, then the NA-2 and NA-4 most certainly do not."--RAF910 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AR-15 has its own page (and also AR-15 variants), as does the CAR-15 and M4 carbine. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Armalite AR-15 does not have its own page...Read it again. The AR-15 page that you are referring to is devoted to the semi-auto Colt AR-15. The Armalite AR-15 is select-fire rifle that predates both the U.S.G.I. M16 and Colt AR-15, and is only mentioned within the body of those articles. In a way you sort of made my point for me...The NA-2 and the NA-4 do not merit their own page and should be mentioned only within the body of the AN-94 article. Frankly, I don't believe that they should be mentioned at all, as they are both nothing more than one gun prototypes. If we accept the notion that prototype firearms are notable. Then we will have to accept tens of thousands of one gun prototype articles from manufacturers and gunsmiths that nobody has ever heard of before, simply because they have a patent or they were mentioned (in passing) in an obscure magazine article.--RAF910 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ingold

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

Delete - Appears to be self-written biography of living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need work to bring it up to scratch (I've started revising and only got to 2001 so far), but I think that John Ingold is notable as an author of interactive fiction. Many of his works have been nominated for XYZZY Awards, which are the most important awards in the field, and several have won or ranked highly in the Interactive Fiction Competition. He's discussed as an important contemporary author in Nick Montfort's book Twisty Little Passages, the most extensive academic study of IF, and his All Roads is one of three works treated in detail in Alf Seegert's article at doi:10.1386/jgvw.1.1.23_1. I've also found reviews at websites like Jay Is Games[1], Just Adventure[2] and GameSetWatch,[3] even if we ignore IF-specific websites like SPAG. EALacey (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AFD page wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log when created, so I've added it to today's log. I'm also adding the usual header to this page. EALacey (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article might need a bit of attention but it should not be deleted. The author is a well-established, award-winning, multiply-cited name in the interactive fiction field and is definitely noteworthy enough as a person (and here as an article) for continued inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm saying this as a professor of literature who has an invested interested in Interactive Fiction as a general field, not just in this author specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.242.228 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic Ramblings

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

Bootleg without any reliable coverage. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Disputed PROD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found for this bootleg; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 03:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 99% of bootlegs are not notable per WP:NALBUMS. The whole sentence long article does not demonstrate notability. STATic message me! 02:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misti Love

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

Poorly sourced biography of porn performer who fails WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG, PORNBIO and any other suitable notability guideline. Cavarrone 22:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG with only passing mentions in semi-reliable sources like AVN and XBiz. Fails PORNBIO with only a single Urban Spice award nomination. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vincent-Rori

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

non-notable living artist Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reliable sources that discuss this artist, and thus can't determine notability. Happy to revisit this one if I'm missing something. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable artist and quite frankly, perhaps, that there are no reliable sources for the artist. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found to indicate that this person meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found NealeFamily (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-'Aidrus FC

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

Can't find anything to demonstrate notability -- or even that it has been noticed. Looks either made-up or not far from made-up to me. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this AfD -- a speedy deletion tag was added to the article while I was adding the AfD, and that tag is the proper approach. Please direct any needed brickbats my way. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Bakic

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

Serbian footballer who scored a very fast goal in a very minor match, which got captured on film and prompted a lot of extremely non-indepth articles basically simply saying "hey look, this kid scored a fast goal and it's on YouTube!!!!" No significant coverage of the player that I can find so as to pass WP:GNG, nothing to say how old he is, where he was born, or anything - he's literally just namechecked. Article claims he holds the world record for the fastest goal, but there is no evidence this is officially recognised by anyone, in fact the Metro article used as a reference for this claim only uses the very vague wording "Could this be the quickest goal ever scored? Well we can’t think of one"......... --ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. There have been lots of these goals. -Koppapa (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL, hasn't played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG, known only for one event per WP:BLP1E. Plenty of notable footballers have scored directly from kick-off, something that a cursory Google search could have proven. Hack (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss teen international (USA)

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines. Also, it is written like it is for promotion. Also, it relies on one source, which is the website, which once again convinces me that this isn't notable. WT101 (Chat • Count) 19:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator and my reasons. WT101 (Chat • Count) 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~For all: Never mind this discussion, this is going to be CSD'd per A7. WT101 (Chat • Count) 01:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck the above statement. A CSD cannot be made while an article is in AfD. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it only has one source and is poorly written (like an advertisement). APerson241 (talk!) 00:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided to indicate that this is a notable pageant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Seoul players

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

PROD contested by article creator, the original rationale of "fails WP:OR (no criteria used to decide why some players are "notable"), and also violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. No justification/need for a separate article" remains valid. I know these types of articles can be notable, it's just that this one ain't. Giant Snowman 19:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Is it really your claim that Wikipedia should not have lists of notable players of notable sports teams unless...what? There are dozens that are featured lists, and I'm at a loss as to what you think is different about this list that it should be deleted. Calling this OR makes zero sense because it's obviously verifiable who played for this team and when, and it's completely standard to limit lists of people to only those who merit articles (i.e., are notable; though wouldn't all players for this team satisfy WP:NFOOTY and all be notable anyway?). Easily satisfies WP:LISTPURP, plus complementary to Category:FC Seoul players per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf:, have you even bothered reading my nomination rationale / looking at the article? It is OR as there is a section called ~~"Notable players"~~"Former players" - is that all players (no, it isn't) or is that just a list of players that the creator / only editor has decided are "notable" for whatever unknown reason? At the minute, it's quite clearly the latter. The article is unreferenced and nothing but fan-boy LISTCRUFT and NOTSTATS. Or, look at it thsi way - if I was to remove everything that was unsupported by reliable sources, we would have nothing left. Giant Snowman 09:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...there is a section called 'Notable players'..." No, there isn't; have you looked at the article you nominated? There used to be, but that was changed the day before you listed it for deletion.[4] Not that the names of headers matter one way or the other for purposes of this discussion. If there are players with articles that have been omitted on no objective basis, the solution is to expand the article to include them. You've identified nothing but potential cleanup and editing issues. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's now called "Former players" as opposed to "Notable players", but the intent is the same. Why are some included and some not? Is there scope (i.e reliable sources) to expand the article to include every player? I cannot find any. If the article therefore cannot be expanded to include every player then the 'Former/Notable players' section can be simply included on the main page. Giant Snowman 13:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If and only if you can convince me that the team roster (whether former or current) for a notable football team is unverifiable, I'll join you in urging deletion. Do you read Korean? postdlf (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't speak Korean, do you? Where can we find a reliable source that lists every former player (which is what the article is about - not current players) to have played for this club? I haven't a clue. Giant Snowman 13:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that the entire list needs to be verified by one source. That's not a thing. Nor do we have to wait until we can verify the entire team roster before we can start listing team players that have been verified one by one. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am under the impression that the entire list needs to be verified full stop - which it currently isn't. You have not provided any sources - 1 or 10, it does not matter. I also do not know why you are talking about the "team roster" as that has zero impact on this article at all. Giant Snowman 14:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a perfectly reasonable list topic. --Michig (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig:, how so? As I state in my nomination, these lists can be notable but this one isn't. Giant Snowman 09:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep.

Hey, GiantSnowman, I selected former players very carefully, I checked out basic stats (including caps, goals), captains career and internaiotional career and newspapers and FC Seoul 25 years history book and so on regarding players. It's not my subjective opinion. Please believe me and take it easy. If you are Korean and FC Seoul fan, You definately accept former player lists.Footwiks (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you sourced it all from? Where are these newspapers and books you have used? Being a "fan" has nothing to do with it. Giant Snowman 13:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean, If you are fan, you expeireced listed players notability and accept it. For example, If not a football fan, many people

don't know notability of David Bechame, They think that David Bechame is just hansome footballer.Footwiks (talk)

As I have said for perhaps the 3rd time here - I am not saying that lists of footballers are not notable. I am saying that currently this list is not notable. And David Beckham was a very poor choice seeing as he is a footballer who is definitely famous among non-fans. Giant Snowman 14:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is website which can read Korean old newspaper sinse 1910s http://search.naver.com/search.naver?sm=tab_hty&where=nexearch&query=%B3%D7%C0%CC%B9%F6+%BF%BE%B3%AF+%BD%C5%B9%AE Here is FC Seoul 25 years History E-book. http://www.fcseoul.com/history.jsp If you reand Korean, Check out them Footwiks (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to add the sources / improve the article. Even if this AFD closes as a 'keep' I will be deleting any unreferenced content in the article and editing to bring it in line with similar articles. Giant Snowman 14:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up - article is a bit of a mess. Needs to be properly referenced and pruned with the list of players expanded with an appropriate inclusion criteria. Hack (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets the notability guideline for stand-alone lists. Discussions regarding content should be done on the talk-page. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Seoul players in major competitions

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

PROD removed by article creator, the original deletion rationale of "pure WP:LISTCRUFT" remains valid. Giant Snowman 19:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Classic listcruft. Subjective list (what is major?) that is not supported by independent sources. Hack (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the notability guideline for stand-alone lists as reliable sources doesn't discuss this list topic as a group. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArticle is moved to List of FC Seoul players in international competitions, This is very useful article and FC Seoul produced many players who playered many internaltion competitions includedign World Cup, Olympic and so on.Footwiks (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page move reverted. The title is not the issue, notability is. Giant Snowman 13:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lattice Compatibility Theory

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

I can find no evidence that "Lattice compatibility theory" is a notable area of study. All of the Google hits are to K. Boubaker, a known Wikipedia sock-puppeteer who has serially disrupted Wikipedia in order to advance his own original research (see also fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme_de_longue_durée/Mmbmmmbm). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Only a handful of papers on the topic, all poorly cited. Not notable. -- 203.171.197.14 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Ozob (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of the independent sources needed for WP:NPOV and failure to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Rudloff

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

Seems to be a non-notable artist. In addition, concerns about many other non-encyclopedic aspects of this article. Circumstances merit a speedy deletion, but wanted the process to get its due course and get feedbacks from others before deleting werldwayd (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Most definitely unencyclopedic and non-notable. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 1. Snotbot t • c » 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Complete failure of WP:BLP sourcing reqs; no evidence of notability of any kind. Is there a reason why this isn't a CSD A7? AllyD (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant spam. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete My web browser only showed 178 search results matching "Noel Rudloff". DecafGrub47393 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lomish

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

Does this even exist? Aside from mirrors, I can find nothing relating to this clan using GBooks, GSearch or JSTOR. It has been unsourced and tagged as orphaned for years. Fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources and I do not see a single reference for this article and not notable. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly Fails WP:GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Williams (baseball)

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

PROD removed by an editor who wants a "discussion". Fine. I don't see what's to discuss given the lack of sources that would be needed to pass WP:GNG though. He was a 35th round pick out of a junior college. No major awards appear to be won that would provide any notability. The only mentions appear to be high school game reports, mostly limited to the Daily Ardmoreite. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero evidence of notability beyond very local coverage of his draft selection. Clearly does not pass the subject-specific guideline, either. I just corrected the article to reflect that he has never played in a Major League game and pitches for the Gulf Coast League Mets (which is below Single-A baseball). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. He has not even started pitching in minor league ball yet. The article seemed to imply that he was related to Mitch Williams but I can not confirm that so i took the links out. Spanneraol (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I saw ONLY 7 search results about Ty Williams (baseball). DecafGrub47393 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsurprising that almost no web pages contain the exact phrase "Ty Williams (baseball)". Remove the quotes and brackets and you get six million hits. But this is irrelevant because Google hits are not a measure of notability. Dricherby (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those hits are of different people with the same name. Spanneraol (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is just one of the reasons why number of Google hits isn't a useful measure. Dricherby (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I have never heard of him nor of his notabilities. A non-notible minor league pitcher in the New York Mets organization. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you've heard of him or not is irrelevant. I've not heard of 90% of members of the US Senate but that's not grounds for deleting their articles. Dricherby (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. Didn't win any major junior college awards, and doesn't meet WP:GNG otherwise. Mpejkrm (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Oshiro

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

MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA and whose coverage is just routine sports reporting so he also fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks enough top tier fights to meet {{WP:NMMA]] and only coverage is routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only two top-tier fights (with none on the horizon) and not enough solid sourcing on his page or online. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk)

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Benson

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

non notable businessmen -- very unreliable sources only DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatice Kübra İlgün

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

Junior TKD competitor that fails to meet WP:MANOTE because junior competitors are not considered notable and fails to meet WP:GNG because all of the sources are simply the routine reporting of sports results.Mdtemp (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: According to the article, she has also competed in the Mediterranean Games and won a silver medal. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is not ranked in the top 200 of her division in the WTF's June 2013 rankings. In addition, the Mediterranean Games are considered a minor competition by the WTF. It's not in their list of 30 major competitions and is a grade 1 (the lowest level) event. By comparison, the continental qualifiers for the Olympic games were grade 5 and the Olympics themselves were grade 10. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the reasons I gave above, the article's sources appear to be routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:MANOTE.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benair

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

non-scheduled airline; no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources have significant coverage, they are mostly reliable (two government websites, the company website, one aviation enthusiast website, one third party directory), although the company website is not independent (source 1) – another website verifies the data (source 2). Benair is an independent operator in Norway and a significant part of the aviation scene at Oslo Airport. Although there are only few sources detailing the Danish/UK operation, the ones that do seem to confirm much of the same data. The company seems to me suitable for its own article. ozwegian ( talk ) 18:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because WP:CORP is not met: Benair does not seem to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The four references of this Wikipedia article (other than the self-published website) [5][6][7][8] are trivial (directory-like) and only contain the most basic pieces of information. An (admittedly quick and elementary) internet search does not provide anything more valuable. Dear ozwegian, no doubt that the information is verifiable and backed by reliable government sources, but the mere existence does not make an airline (or rather, any company) notable.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FoxyOrange: I can certainly appreciate the argument that a company's existence in itself does not make it notable. In my oppinion, the company's relative significance in Norway (both in and of itself, and as a company many local pilots have started their careers with) makes it notable in a Norwegian setting, although I admit that it is difficult to find reliable sources to prove notability. Even though the article could be made in (or suggested for) Norwegian or Danish Wikipedia, that would be restricting the information to a particular language – when in fact the company operates in several European countries. ozwegian ( talk ) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:COMPANY. In my search of Danish sources, I found no significant coverage for the company. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grown Man Shit

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

A non-notable mixtape that fails WP:NALBUMS. Never charted. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Even Allmusic skipped the obligatory paragraph blurb. Would not oppose a redirect to the artist page. Niteshift36 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS as a far from notable mixtape. STATic message me! 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable mixtape. Koala15 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flood (animator)

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

Both subjects fail WP:BIO and are both very likely self-promotion. I've given the articles' creator a few weeks to possibly get these articles up to any kind of notability standards, but outside of extra fluff and trivia being added from either a Facebook page or IMDB, nothing much as changed. No other reliable, independent, third-party sources exists that give more than a passing mention. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, per nom. It's just too soon. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to put up any more third party references as I am still waiting for an article about them that I've been told is being written. As soon as that article is produced, I will be able to provide more information from a third party source.AnimationWhiz133 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the articles that have been put up by the charity that Mark Flood works with?AnimationWhiz133 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be considered WP:PRIMARY sources since the charity is affiliated with him, and as such wouldn't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stuffed to bursting with puffery and sub-trivia (one line is literally a list of people he was in a room with once... no, really), but hasn't done anything notable yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage (or even mention) in reliable sources. I probed Google Books and News. I also looked for any coverage in British periodicals and Scottish ones (Daily Record and The Scotsman) and found none. I have to conclude that this is puffery. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:TOOSOON. Miniapolis 00:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, for lack of obvious notability. I do think that WP:USUAL applies to both, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is obviously notable. This guy has done a lot already and from what it says, has a lot of stuff coming up. I think that it is obvious this article should be kept. Stratosphere301 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable. As to he "has a lot of stuff coming up", that fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about Jack Morrison (actor) but Mark Flood (animator) should be preserved. I think that there seems to be enough articles to support that. He survived a stroke as a teenager, I think that almost deserves a page in itself. Phantombutler (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ashley Kirilow. There is no consensus to delete outright. Normal editing can now determine what, if anything, from this article's history should be merged to Ashley Kirilow, or if that article should instead be moved to this title. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change for the Cure

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

Does not seem to pass notability criteria. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should be a speedy. No credible assertion of notability. Taroaldo ✉ 01:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. ~~Speedy~~ delete - there is no evidence whatsoever that this 'charity' has any notability independent of the individual concerned - this looks to me like a misguided attempt to bypass WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how BLP would come into play here. This article is about a charity. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:BLP policy then - it applies to any material relating to a living person on Wikipedia, whether in a biography or other article, or indeed on a talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Which aspect of the BLP policy is this stub violating, WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't apply, as the subject of the article isn't a person. Surely you aren't suggesting Wikipedia can't have articles about WP:ORGs founded by still living people simply because such articles might make the people involved look bad, are you? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, a misguided attempt to get around WP:BLP policy. Fortunately, policy doesn't permit such transparent Wikilawyering - WP:BLP policy applies whether an article is about a real person, or a fictitious organisation - what matters is the content, not the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick, the article is not about a charity. There was no charity....just a fraud. The title is misleading, and the article creator even added the charity stub. Seriously. Taroaldo ✉ 02:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as an organization set up primarily to commit fraud? Pfft (although I apologize for my utter inability to properly WP:STUBSORT). -- Kendrick7^talk 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What organisation? There was no organisation. The fraud consisted of her telling people she had an organisation. Nothing more. There was a facebook page: big deal. How is any of this notable? Taroaldo ✉ 02:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartly agree it is about the content. So, again, which content policy, per my list above, are you accusing this article of violating? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E, as I have already said. Your 'list above' is incomplete... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round and round we go. The proper notability guideline is WP:ORG. Obviously, the vast majority of modern day organizations are made up of living people who are otherwise non-notable. That shouldn't automatically make articles about such organizations non-encyclopedic. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the slightest bit interested in your Wikilawyering bullshit - the only sources cited refer to Kirilow - any mention of the 'charity' is made in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy--there appear to be two major reliable sources, & that makes enough of a claim of importance to pass speedy. If they are not adequate for one reason or other to meet the notability requirement, this needs to be a community decision to delete after full discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable attention seeker. It made the news because of how reprehensible the act was; nothing to do with the person or the specific act of fraud. Taroaldo ✉ 02:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the organization is both non-notable because it has sought attention, and yet notable for its reprehensible behavior? ~~Your second vote here~~ doesn't make a lot of sense, frankly. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What second vote is that? You are beginning to make it difficult to keep assuming good faith when you start making ridiculous accusations. Taroaldo ✉ 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I miss read your pro-speedy delete comment as a pseudo vote. Stricken. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google search for this organization and its bad behavior gets over 23 million hits on Google.[9] I know some are arguing that we should ignore WP:ORG, and that we can't have articles about poorly run organizations made up of otherwise non-notable and still living people, per WP:BLP1E. But we're an encyclopedia, and the proverbial cat is long since out of the bag. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the deal - I'll remove any references to Kirilow per WP:BLP1E, and you write the article about the 'organisation' based on sources that don't mention her - there must be a few amongst the 23 million that don't ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was around when WP:BLP1E became policy. Its original intent was for Wikipedia to not have articles about random internet users who, due to no fault of their own, became memes on 4chan or the like.[10] A noble if rather worthless goal thanks to that other wiki. I even think it's fine and reasonable not to create articles about one-off criminals of little notoriety. But with your interpretation, the slope has slipped quite enough for me. The policy wasn't created to protect organizations which have deliberately committed real-money fraud and are widely notable because of it. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of it The other part was to avoid detailed coverage of unrelated minor criminal incidents in the lives of people, except where the people (like political figures or well- publicized sports & entertainment figures) were such as that all aspects of their behavior were considered by the public as important, It was not meant to prevent the discussion of criminal behavior by people noted for being criminals. BLP of course does apply to articles about other things than people, as indeed it should, but among the things that it does rightly require is that when we do cover criminal behavior, we try to use a non-personal name for the article subject. Frauds can be notable, as I think this one is, and the name of the organization is a fair heading for the article that covers it. The individual responsible can be discussed also, as any other other criminal. BLP has to be used very careful to avoid becoming censorship of the unpleasant. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any evidence that 'an organisation' ever existed, other than in Kirilow's imagination? If so, please provide sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources suggest that it did. Please bring forth your sources that suggest that checks made out to Change for the Cure were cashed only in anyone's particular imagination. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read your own sources? The articles clearly make reference to her soliciting all payments in "cash and rolls of change". There were no cheques to be cashed and there was no organisation, except in her mind. There are "millions" of hits because a few stories were done by CP or TorStar and a bunch of other news outlets picked them up. Taroaldo ✉ 05:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WhatI was saying above, was they we could indeed cover it under her name, but that it is an appropriate use of discretion to use some other title,. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC) before a com[reply]

DGG, I'm really surprised you're falling for this bogus article. The Toronto Star article clearly spells out what she was doing. Look closer. Taroaldo ✉ 05:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information - A fairly large userspace draft on Ashley Kirilow was written by Geo Swan in the 2010-2012 time frame. He turned it into a redirect to List of cancer victim hoaxes (which was deleted yesterday via this AFD) before moving it to Ashley Kirilow. here is the last draft before he gutted it. Ashley Kirilow now redirects to Change for the Cure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to a restored Ashley Kirilow, restored to the last "full" version as it existed when it was a userspace draft. Then clean up and reduce the size of the restored Ashley Kirilow page and make sure it is WP:BLP-compliant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. I think an argument can be made that the organization Ashley Kirilow set up, called "Change for the Cure" was notable, hers was not the only charity or bogus charity to use the phrase. Another organization that used it was the very successful Susan G. Komen charity, which distributed "Change for the Cure" jars for years. The article should cover all organizations that use the slogan. Geo Swan (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a single article that deals with "Change for the Cure" and "Ashley Kirilow". I agree with DGG that the article should be at Change for the Cure; Ashley Kirilow should be merged into and redirected to it. The primary topic should be the charity fraud. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ashley Kirilow. However, there's really no information in the article to merge apart from a couple references, so a merge here is, in effect, a delete. Marechal Ney (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about where to merge if we do merge. The primary notability for both the person and the organization is the criminal behavior. Our BLP policy is unambiguous that in ordinary circumstances when there is a choice of names we do not use the personal name of the criminal for the title, so if there is any basis for an article at all it belongs under the organization name. I am rather startled by some of the comments above that I am too credulous about accept the positive material here. I very much accept the negative material, and the way to cover it is under the present name. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ashley Kirilow article. I don't think this deserves status as a separate article. It was a figment of Kirilow's imagination and should remain as part of that article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles, making Ashley Kirilow re-direct to the charity. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashley Kirilow; this subject has neither the lasting effects nor the duration of coverage required by WP:EVENT. Miniapolis 14:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a quick search on Google and found nothing. The subject has only a mention in all the sources provided, and there seems to be no considerable third party coverage, except some passing mentions. Usmanwardag (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of minor planets: 12001–13000. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12934 Bisque

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

Non-notable asteroid. Plenty of sources (of varying reliability) that assert it exists on the web, and nothing else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to List of minor planets: 12001–13000 as seems to be the most common outcome for this type of body. I see no evidence that it passes WP:NASTRO but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've WP:BOLDly redirected. Now, if someone could close... Ansh666 04:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pneus Online

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

Notability doubtful. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources not established. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable through multiple reliable sources quoting it as an international tire retailer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksdocksz (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of the sources, only one was reliable, but that did not have an extensive coverage. I could not verify the reliablity or the extensiveness of the award, but they seemed to be the only other references which check out. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flapjax

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

unmaintained research implementation of FRP in JavaScript. Ysangkok (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Books search gives about 300 hits; this may be notable. I'd like to see more comments from editors familiar with notability as applied to CS topics, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get only 136: http://www.google.com/search?q=flapjax&tbm=bks&tbo=1 . And some of them are fiction. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the above link, I get 342 results. Metromoxie (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is an active community for Flapjax, albeit small: [11]. Notably, it is also a relatively heavily cited paper in Programming Languages: [12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metromoxie (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've hear of this before. Introduced in a fairly recent (2009) OOPSLA paper, but already has 70 citations [13]. With web programming being a fairly trendy topic and having Shriram Krishnamurthi behind it, that's only likely to increase. I think this would pass as notable for now. —Ruud 09:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on my own searches, and the above discussion, it seems this is a notable enough subject. PhilKnight (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthems in Animal Farm

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

Fails WP:N. Not independently notable from Animal Farm. Filled with WP:OR and unsourced, with the only exception as two pages referenced from novel. AldezD (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I think this is independently notable because Orwell's use of subtle detail in his polemic works was always carefully thought out and he's full of allegory to '30s politics. However I recognise that this is still unsourced and per our usual policy, that's a big problem.

Ideally I'd like to see someone with access to the Orwell sources and commentaries take this article in hand and fix it. There's an interesting and sourceable article here and I would very much like to read it afterwards. As Orwell commentary is pretty much an industry in the UK, for GCSE school level English Lit courses, then there must be any amount of commentary out there and surely there's enough covering this specific topic. It's not my field though, I'm certainly not going to write it, and thus I can't make a strong case for keeping it.

Bringing this up to scratch would be an excellent project for anyone working with UK schools. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - per the points that Andy Dingley made. It's certainly not in tip-top condition, but with a few hardy souls working on it we can return it to Wikipedia. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is salvageable into Animal Farm, redirect to the section, and work on it there. If it grows too big for that article, it can be split off again. Ansh666 21:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. That neither fixes the problem, nor improves Animal Farm. Notability of the topic isn't the issue here, sourcing for the claims made (i.e. avoiding OR) is. A merged section would have just the same problem. As this article also necessarily quotes heavily from the source anthems, that would introduce a new problem of WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence "whatever is salvageable". The source anthems aren't appropriate for any article IMO (my interpretation of WP:QUOTE), so any Anthems article/section would necessarily be shorter than the present (unless there really is that much to write about it!). Also, nom's main issue was failing WP:N; I'm not convinced by your comments that this should be given any separate treatment as the sections in Animal Farm#Analysis. Ansh666 22:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 11:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced original essay. Yeah, WP:ITSINTERESTING. If there is scholarship out there on such things, source it up and try again. Carrite (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to this being userfied. It needs to be sourced up though. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what can be sourced and redirect. No indication of individual notability or justification for a distinct article per WP:SPLIT, but I think the songs in the novel and their significance merit a sentence or a short section in the Animal Farm article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've added a bit of sourced content, which I think would be equally at home in the Animal Farm article but which I guess could also be an argument for keeping. There's probably more that could be added from what can be easily found on Google Books. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to cross into copyvio territory as it is. The songs trace the structure of the book, but so does the book as a whole. Why focus on this particular facet? - Richfife (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since additional RS have been provided. Miniapolis 20:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added reliable sources establish notability. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in here establishes that this is a notable enough topic for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus after multiple relistings DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convore

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

Notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article itself already shows secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with User:Notnoteworthy, not notable. Arrangington (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Struck coomment by a sockpuppet of Notnoteworthy - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notnoteworthy. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if the nominator and supporter could explain why they don't consider the cited PCWorld and MIT Technology Review articles to be independent, reliable and consisting of significant coverage. Deletion discussions are supposed to be about evidence, not unsubstantiated personal opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. The PC World and MIT Technology Review articles seem to be enough to squeak by WP:GNG. Gong show 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AppHarbor

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

Orphan, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real info, probably WP:SOAP. Grande (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article on startup with insufficient coverage to establish notability. Sources have only incidental mentions, or are product release/PR notices. Y-combinator's article shows they have funded 500+ startups; such funding does not in itself establish notability Dialectric (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge discussions, if necessary, can take place on the talk page — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status set

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

Apparently non-notable term. I can't find anything in a Google search on this term (obviously, searching for "status set" turns up lots of other, irrelevant, things!) and the one reference in the article is very evidently primary. Nothing of use in the prior AfD, which appears to have been about a completely different article (as one would expect for an eight-year gap) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previously deleted article is about the same concept as this article but with zero references. GB fan 17:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've confirmed what I thought, and what I meant - my statement wasn't very well expressed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable sociological term; a search for "Status set" merton in Google Books gives over 300 hits. The nominator should work on their google-fu. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, provide some please. Given the generic nature of the words, an arbitrary figure like that is useless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not confident this advances far beyond a stub at any point, but GBooks returns quite a few hits of this specific concept, coined by this specific writer, being used in context. If the concept is being cited this widely it is probably notable. Here is the search. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that particular search doesn't appear to show that this is independently notable of the guy who coined it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The abstracts alone are clearly concerned with the concept, first, and the "coiner" of the concept, second. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article and role set into Robert K. Merton, whcih already has extensive discussion of his theories.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search of GScholar for "Status set" sociology returns 667 hits. The first few pages of that search shows plenty of non-Merton sources using that term in the correct sense. The paper First Words: Do Sociologists Actually Use the Terms in Introductory Textbooks' Glossaries ? shows the term status set to be among the notable terms introduced in sociology textbooks and shows evidence that it has been used for decades. Plenty of secondary reliable sources, including sociology textbooks, suggest that this term is notable. The article, while short, has no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and no insurmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SwipeGood

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

Advertisement, orphan, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious WP:GNG fail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article on a defunct startup, with insufficient coverage to establish notability - the only coverage of significant length is the techcrunch source, but that article only describes their product and does little to establish notability of the company.Dialectric (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiGear

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

Orphan, advertisement, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. There has been one instance of significant coverage, from MSNBC - not enough for notability by itself. Searching is difficult because of other, similarly-named companies such as Hi-Gear or Hi Gear ski equipment. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky (website)

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

Advertisement, orphan, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Has been around less than 2 years and inoperable for a fair chunk of that time according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR L Faraone 02:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gantto

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

Advertisement, orphan, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dmol (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete after two relistings. No objection to speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piictu

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

Orphan, notability, advertisement Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the consensus is reasonably clear after 2 relistings. The only alternative close would have be no consensus, not delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Angel (company)

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

Advertisement, notability, orphan Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one article about this company at the San Jose Mercury News, a reliable regional source. This one article is not enough for notability. Maybe later; the company is only a year old. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I'm a new Wikipedian, so I don't expect you to necessarily count my vote. However, I have done my due diligence because I know of this company-- it's well-known in the Bay Area. I found sources at TechCrunch, PCWorld, San Jose Business Journal, San Jose Mercury News--all reliable regional sources. These four articles are enough for notability. Age of entity is not relevant. There's actually a lot to say about this entity. It is a public good. --SFMarkIV (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Morning277 sock —rybec 16:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the coverage from the SJBJ appears to be passing mention, and I am unsure as to the reliability of TechCrunch, I do recognize PCWorld as a reliable source as it is a widely distributed professionally published magazine. After reviewing the PCWorld article which is used as a source within the article, along with the San Jose Mercury News article, this makes two significant coverage sources, sufficient IMHO to pass WP:GNG; therefore, I am supporting keeping this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable through multiple reliable sources citing it as a well known hotel and travel search engine site. --Bstfstgd1 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Morning277 sock —rybec 16:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete after two relistings. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unanet Technologies

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

Advertisement, orphan, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat borderline. Seems like they have a product that is used fairly widely, but happens to be in a not-so-exciting field (time sheets?) so not covered in popular press. Might be possible to rescue by removing the marketing language (another case of the dreaded "solution provider" sigh). It appears the CEO is somewhat notable, and the company had a previous life as "Computer Strategies, Inc" which might be worth telling. Not sure when someone can work on it. W Nowicki (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the notability should be addressed with a couple Washington Post articles and a few other mentions of software and people. Been around since 1988, so much more than the usual article about two kids and an app. Still needs work to un-orphan and do a better job explaining what they do. They seem to provide timesheet software for the Beltway bandits in that area, for example. But please take another look. W Nowicki (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 02:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quartzy

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

Advertisement, orphan, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References in the article include significant coverage from a New York Times blog and a Wall Street Journal blog. The company won the Startup 2011 award from Business Insider and the Olin Cup from Washington University - St. Louis; those are not necessarily significant awards in themselves, but combined with the other coverage they help this company reach notability IMO.--MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete getting listed as 'one to watch' is not notability in itself. THE NYT coverage is a blog not the print paper and contains only four paragraphs. Most of the other things are interview-based, with the factual content coming from the company, thus not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspaper blogs published under the editorial control of the newspaper are essentially the equivalent of the former regular columns, and equally reliable. Print eds. of a paper are not inherently more reliable than electronic. The sort of blog we do not accept is the privately published blog of someone who has no substantial claims to being an authority. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AppJet

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

Advertisement, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Appjet is gone now, but notability is not temporary. SL93 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SL93 - significant coverage exists in multiple reliable sources; subject appears to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete after two relistings. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BackType

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

Notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good secondary source coverage, notability does not go away. — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Cirt.. Was once notable, so still suitable for the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scoopler. L Faraone 02:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dilan Jayawardane

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

Notability, orphan Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sorts of twenty-somethings do little start-ups that fizzle out before becoming notable. See Scoopler and fact that the site went defunct. Looks like changed its name to http://www.justspotted.com which then also went defunct. A two-year web site is hardly noticeable, so both articles need to go. W Nowicki (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scoopler - could not find sources establishing this person's notability apart from the software he wrote. Dialectric (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MixRank

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

Notability, advertisement, orphan Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON for this 2-year-old company to have achieved any notability. All that is shown by the references is that they got some investors. The two Reliable Source citations in the article, Wired and Forbes, are only passing mentions. At this point the company fails WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InstantCab

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

Notability, advertising, orphan. Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local company which has not received significant coverage even locally.[23] Fails WP:CORP by a mile. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, subject of this AfD appears to have received significant coverage from The Tech Crunch, which is published by AOL, and The Next Web, both of which I am unsure whether they are reliable sources. If they are, I am inclined to think that the subject of this AfD meets WP:GNG, however, if they are not, then they would clearly not meet GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Joe Ledger Series. merge as suggested, and accepted by both keep and delete commentators. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon Factory

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

No evidence of notability for this book. Article is only a plot summary, but I could not find any literary awards, nor is the author historically significant as per requirements for book notability. Dmol (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - I did try to clean it up and add a bit but the two reviews I found were all I could find anywhere that wasn't a blog. So it doesn't meet criteria 1 at WP:NBOOK, in my view, and it's not likely to meet the others either. Stalwart111 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Dammit. I never work those aspects of a page for my adds/edits so I didn't realize it was so under the radar. I worked hard on the plot segment for this and Patient Zero. Rather than just can it, I'd at least like to roll it with Joe Ledger Series. My one protest is that PZ, this, and the third book whose name escapes me are being considered to be made into movies, so may meet criteria 1 in the future.Brinlong (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage is light, but it's out there. Other than the trade reviews from PW and Booklist, I found reviews from the SF Crowsnest, SF Site, and SF Signal. They're not as mainstream as say, Fangoria, but they have been considered RS in the past. There is also the review from the Seattle PI and a somewhat brief article from Dread Central. I have no true issue with this being lumped into one big article for the series as a whole, but there was coverage out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's all those sources I was looking for! What happened to my google-foo yesterday? Changed my !vote. I wouldn't strongly object to a merge if it allows other less-notable books in the series to also be covered (where they can't be covered on a stand-alone basis) but I can't support deleting this any more. Stalwart111 10:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stole your google-foo. There can be only one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lobe

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:JOURNALIST. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why would an article on Jim Lobe be considered not notable, when probably more than a thousand biographical wikipedia articles exist on far less notable figures? He has for thirty years been Washington DC bureau head of a highly respected international news agency. Perhaps hundreds of his articles have had very significant coverage, and been read and republished all over the internet for well over a decade. He's got archives of articles on several popular news sites, including Lew Rockwell, Alternet, and Common Dreams. He's been interviewed more than once by global television channels for his expertise. He has a successful blog-site that is linked into by several hundred other web sites, and is followed on social media by thousands of people. I think this clearly means that a wikipedia article on Jim Lobe would meet notability guidelines WP:GNG. D Dayus (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are undoubtably more than a thousand other articles that should be deleted, but this discussion is about this article, not those other articles. If you want this article to be kept then you need to provide evidence that Jim Lobe has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It's not enough to assert that claim without providing the evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well, then, that I did mention that his works have had very significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Try doing a search. You'll see that my mention of those three significant reliable independent sources is just a start. Would you like me to do the search, and report the results? Or is it significant enough to mention that, of the 234,000 results on Google, the first few pages of results include references to him and his work by significant, independent, and long-standing sources, such as Inter Press Service, Alternet, AntiWar.com, Aljazeera, Common Dreams, Z Communications, Open Society Foundations, and The Nation. Or is it a policy of wikipedia that an author who has had his work published for decades in significant reliable independent sources, and republished widely elsewhere, and who is bureau chief at an internationally significant news agency office in the capital city of the only global superpower, and whose work has been influential in covering the politics of the said superpower, is only notable if someone else writes something about him? D Dayus (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is Wikipedia policy, and yes, please do the search and report what you find about Lobe in independent reliable sources. Publications that he writes for are by definition not independent, and in those first few pages of search results and in the sources that you list I can only find stuff by Lobe, not about him. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added some fresh sources because I believe he is important, but more have to be entered to save the article. In the databases, he's written quite a bit himself. He's also referred to by other writers at a much higher rate than you'll find with other journalists. While he gives interviews, I haven't yet found one where he speaks about bio details. He is always the expert. Crtew (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lobe is an award winning journalist who is cited again and again by his peers, and therefore he meets the basic requirements of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. His organization is different from the mainstream media and this accounts for some of the differences between himself and other journalists. Crtew (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which notable peers cite him again and again? Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for I believe that notibility is established. I also think that if you want to improve a journalist article, I would recommend notability in order to reach the nobility guidelines; I say it is a pretty good article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creepypasta

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

It's not unthinkable that an article about the phenomenon of "creepypasta" could be created. However, this one isn't it; it's just a listing of creepypasta stories and videos, sourced solely to KnowYourMeme, fan wikis, and the stories/videos themselves. Delete and redirect to List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:V. Article is currently "sourced" entirely to web sites that allow anonymous submissions. Search engine test of news, books, and scholarly sources finds passing mentions of the term "creepypasta" but no evidence that sufficient reliable sourcing is available to meet WP:GNG. If a redirect is left in place of the article, then the edit history of this article strongly suggest that long-term protection will be required to prevent yet another recreation of this previously deleted subject. --Allen3 ^talk 15:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Right now we should delete until somebody comes up with a better version that is more than just "notable examples" and bad sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know whether or not non-admins can take part at this but if:

Keep, but with a not properly sourceable tag. Creepypasta is in most cases not true, best case would be Ben Drowned where the creator revealed that it isnt true, and people should be able to know that most creepypasta is not true or have any evidence without going to some shady websites.

M y 1 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone can take part – welcome and thank you! The problem with the article is that nobody can find any reliable sources that talk about creepypasta. That means that the only way to write an article about creepypasta is to visit and take material from exactly the "shady websites" you want to avoid. Dricherby (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

of course but here in Wiki we can set a mark that the sources are not reliable, so that people know to take it with a pinch of salt, for example with the template {{Unreliable sources}} or something like that, which other sites probably dont do or simply cannot do.

M y 1 20:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that all articles must cite reliable sources: it's a fundamental part of what Wikipedia is. We don't have a sort of "Wikipedia 2" where all the unreliable articles hang out. The purpose of the {{Unreliable sources}} template is to encourage editors to find better sources, which can't be done if there are no better sources. Dricherby (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK too bad, but Also a reason for keeping this, Mythology things like Harpies, or good old Medusa, or best example, God, which are not really proven to exist, are here in the Wiki. Creepypasta ist just the scary side of modern-day mythology, if you ask me.

(also just a note, when comments of My1xT appear here, this is just my account for insecure computers as permitted by WP:SOCK#LEGIT

M y 1 20:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the difference between Harpies, Medusa and God on the one hand, and creepypasta on the other is that there are lots of reliable sources discussing Harpies, Medusa and God. Regardless of whether or not they exist, we can write a verifiable article about what people have said about them, the influence they've had on society and so on. Without sources, we can't do that for creepypasta. The significant difference between creepypasta and mythology is that nobody has analysed or written about creepypasta in any way that could be regarded as authoritative and that would give us something to base a verifiable article on. Dricherby (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better Idea. maybe delete the examples, but keep the explanation of the term, which could be sourced somewhere... My1x T(a.k.a. My1 (insecure)) 10:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If appropriate sources exist to demonstrate the notability of the term, that would be reasonable. Dricherby (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could conceivably be a dictionary entry, but the sources are insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Let it preferably be on the website of List of Internet Phenomena at the most.The above mentioned websites do not count as reliable sources.Guru-45 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge), and no other !votes for deletion. Converting noms to a merge discussion (here) at nom's request (below). (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higan (emulator)

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

No significant third-party sources or establishment of notability. Does not appear likely to achieve such notability after a cursory search for sources. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Nominator. Suggested that we redirect this page to List of video game emulators. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KS, AfD nomination implies deletion, so usually a separate bullet would only be to withdraw. Also noms that only propose merge (non-deletion argument) are closed as speedy keep #1. Wanted to give you the heads up in case you want to correct the nom. czar · · 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a little confused on the correct process, but I was relying on the Twinkle script for proper templates, and I didn't see one strictly for merging. If this is the wrong venue, I'm gonna need to cancel a bunch of other similar nominations as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The best venue for merge is Wikipedia:Proposed mergers ({{merge to}}/{{merge from}}). You'd start a discussion on the List talk page, and tag every involved article for proposed merge. AfD is intended only for delete. If you want to withdraw from the lot, I can help you close 'em up and tag the mergers. czar · · 18:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you're willing to help me with that - I unfortunately don't have the time to do that right now. (Full time job and all - limited ability to manage that process at the moment, probably got myself in over my head during my offtime.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it czar · · 20:30, 3 July 2013 (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) 16:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - very limited coverage in reliable sources. (Typical of emulators like this.) Merge/Redirect target Kiefer give makes the most sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nomination. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge, but preferably to more than a list entry. While it may not have enough notability for a dedicated article, I'm pretty sure it's more notable than OpenEmu and some of those NES emulators. (Not sure where it'd need to be merged to not become a list entry, though...) -81.232.114.228 (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Kowz

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

Non-notable gang that fails WP:ORG. Lack of substantial coverage by reliable sources. Found mentions of the group in reliable sources, mostly connected to a single person, but the coverage was about him, not the gang. No real coverage of the group. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be small-time street outfit, mostly mentioned incidentally in connection with one individual. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little mention in news. No reliable sources in general Google search. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowery Street

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

Completing nomination for 74.88.115.197, whose rationale was posted at Talk:Bowery Street and is included verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation at this time - but I do include an additional IP comment from that talk page, as it seems relevant. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating article for deletion because it is about a very small, un-notable street in Brooklyn. Going through this street (which is not really a street in the first place, but a pedestrian/parking path as they are no street signs or anything along the stretch) on Google Maps shows there is nothing significant about it. The only businesses there are small retail stores that operate during the beach season and searching for notability comes up hardly anything. The was originally created as a redirect to the notable street in Manhattan called Bowery, but turned into an article by another IP user. I'm not sure if returning the article to a redirect would be appropriate since few, if any, refer to the Manhattan street as Bowery Street. Most just call it Bowery. 74.88.115.197 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the IP editor who turned it into an article, but only because the redirect to the Bowery was incorrect. The Bowery is never correctly called "Bowery Street" and for someone to type in or link to Bowery Street and be redirected to the Bowery would be misleading. I agree Bowery Street is not notable and have no objection to deletion, provided that it be made clear that the redirect should not be recreated. 69.95.203.29 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and revert to a redirect) doesnt appear to be notable and the fact that the redirect could be deemed to be wrong is not a reason to change the article to a non-notable subject. The fact that the name is not correct does not make it unsuitable as a search term. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect, entirely unremarkable four-block section that can hardly be called a street. However, using it to refer to the Bowery is incorrect and is not particularly common, so I feel that the redirect would cause more trouble than it solves. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments. Also, nom proposes non-deletion action (merge) instead of deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to start a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. Sathasivam

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

this article needs to be merged into P Sathasivam. Uncletomwood (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep P. Sathasivam is the name in Supreme Court of India website see this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfosankar (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Signalizing (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Signalizing (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. P. Sathasivam is the correct title per Wikipedia naming conventions and this is the established article. P .Sathasivam is a duplicate. Anyhow, AfD is for deletions, not merges. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see the logic,I would like to withdraw the Afd.But i gave a DYK nomination what about that?Do i get the credit or does the original aricle get it.Also bringing to notice that the original article didnt have much of info but it is me who bought a lot of info.The editor of te original article just copied parts of my article Uncletomwood (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrik Berglann and three others

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

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

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

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

Have never played a match in a professional football league. Geschichte (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are created by the same user:

neither has played in another league then the second-tier league in Norway (Adeccoligaen) which isn't a fully pro league, and they should all be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - None of them have received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning they all fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - some of these may even qualify to have their BLPPROD's re-added, as once a tag is added, a reliable source must be provided to remove it. At least the source added on Ulrik Berglann doesn't look reliable to me, not sure about others. Charmlet (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the link in Ulrik Berglann is a reliable source, altomfotball.no is TV 2 (Norway)'s statistics site. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credit hustling

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

The definition of a term fails WP:NAD and WP:NOTNEO. Does not meet WP:GNG. Ochiwar (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Can't find any significant coverage where this term was used; it doesn't even come up in Urban Dictionary. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a real thing that does happen (though uncommon), but I've never heard this term for it. We already have a Cheating in casinos article, but I wouldn't redirect there as this seems to be a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an actual thing, attested and notable per reliable sources, then it could be merged to Slot machine#Terminology. But if, as Erpert and Andrew Lenahan each suggest, it is a largely unattested neologism, then delete it. (Google Books backs up that contention: I find only one use of term there.) In either case, it is a dictionary definition and doesn't seem very likely to expand beyond that. Cnilep (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Theopolisme (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rent control in Ontario

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

No sources Caretaker Smith (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BEFORE. No sources? Add some:

Intertenancy Rent Decontrol in Ontario by Lawrence B Smith (University of Toronto, 2003)
An economic assessment of rent controls: The Ontario experience by Lawrence B. Smith (The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 1988, Volume 1, Issue 3) pp 217-231
Consultations to address affordable housing shortage by Laurie Monsebraaten (Toronto Star, 20 July 2009)
Pressure mounts for Ontario to extend rent controls to all tenants by Susan Pigg (Toronto Star, 31 May 2013)
Ontario NDP wants to close rent control loophole by William Wolfe-Wylie (Postmedia News, 4 June 2013)
Despite landlords' objections, Ontario caps rent increases at 2.5% by Gordon Powers (MSN Money, 28 June 2012)

A lack of sources is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. The list above should be enough to get you started and there's plenty more here if you get stuck. Stalwart111 13:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now sourced.Moxy (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is now sourced. No need to delete. Jguy _Talk^Done 15:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage on the subject has been found in multiple reliable sources. Gong show 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing improvements. The status or nonstatus of rent control in different political jurisdictions is a notable topic that Wikipedia should have properly written and sourced articles about. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. WWGB (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Waaka

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

Local councillor and local pageant winner, fails WP:NMODEL and WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst it's true that she doesn't meet the notability standards for these categories, they are not (in my opinion) categories relevant to the reasons for her inclusion.Deb (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what IS she notable for? WWGB (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say being the first Maori woman to win Miss New Zealand does make her notable. In fact, I would suspect she was probably the first indigenous woman to win a major beauty contest in any white-dominated country, which seems to meet our notability bar. WP:NMODEL: "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable as being a politician and for winning Miss New Zealand. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well sourced and as others have pointed out above, as Necrothesp points out, she is significant for being the first indigenous woman to win a national beauty pageant in a white-dominated field. Mabalu (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If winning a national beauty contest in a small country and being a local politician are not themselves notable at the least the combination is notable... Being the first Maori to win a national beauty contest in a largely-white country is itself notable Pbrower2a (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a politician in general in notable no matter how big or small they are known. also being Miss New Zealand is a notable accomplishment for any model. if she has alot of reliable sources written about her then this page should not be deleted. Redsky89 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BCODE

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

No refs for 4 years, no notability proven. BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a first reference relating to the use of this technology. A Highbeam search also turns up quite a number of articles on its use, from IKEA Seattle to cinemas in China. I haven't referenced these into the article as they look likely to derive from press releases, but they may indicate actual take-up and more solid references may be out there. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The newly-added reference does not devote significant attention to BCODE, and I cannot find any reliable third-party coverage significantly devoted to this topic. There are a huge number of systems that support sending a "unique identifier" to a mobile phone via SMS for validating a ticket/voucher/etc. This article about one such branded system is a subtle bit of WP:ADVERTISING, methinks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 2069

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

I'm not sure if this is notable. There were a couple of injuries, but there doesn't seem to be much long-term notability. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of notability is a standard but I had guessed Polaris awards, RADAR award and multi-million dollar settlement would be enough. Hoodinski (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the relevant policy/guideline is WP:AIRCRASH. I have found limited external references (bio of Capt. Hagan as a paid speaker) which suggest that this incident was responsible for instigation of the locked cockpit policy on British Airways aircraft, although this policy was not implemented before the Sept. 11 2001 hijackings. I have been unable to find the relevant notices/directives from the UK CAA (any wikieditors in the UK with better access?). This would constitute a major policy change as a result of the incident and would meet WP:AIRCRASH. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the relevant piece of information (locking cockpit doors policy caused by the incident) and added it to the article. Hoodinski (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in the source you cited. It says cockpit doors were not locked despite this incident, but would be "to increase protection against hijackings after the atrocities in America". Peter James (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, since it says that cockpit doors were not locked despite this incident, the source sees to be arguing the exact opposite of what it was being used to support. I've removed the claim from the article. Dricherby (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the relevant policy/guideline is WP:AIRCRASH." No, it is not - WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy or a guideline, it's just a guide for the participants of WikiProject Aviation on articles covering airplane incidents. The primary policy would instead be notability. Beerest355 Talk 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, although it needs minor clean up, is relevant to its topic. It is a notable attempted hijacking, and besides is listed a 'C' article, not a Stub nor Start. — L. Zheng Wei (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, and the article's rating is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable, for by checking it against the general notability guideline it has reliable sources (several renowned newspapers mainly) and is clearly independent of the subject. For irrelevance, the article has lots of suitable information in the article, so that's that. L. Zheng Wei (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage at the time and mention in the Telegraph article even in the wake of 9/11, and the lawsuit two years later show lasting effect. Dricherby (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mostly for the same reasons. That is if I as creator get to cast a vote on that. Hoodinski (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators are always welcome to contribute. Bear in mind that AfDs aren't votes, though. Dricherby (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Behsud (Hazara tribe). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besuds

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

Unsourced article with single claim. The List in the see also links to this and actually contains more context than this article. I would just redirect to the list but the article creator is not allowing this. No indication of WP:notability. Nothing to say it needs its own article. noq (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. --Hola from mola (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's stub article, i'll improve this page later, ok? Ancientsteppe (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources extensively detailing the tribe itself; the only mentions are books that mention the Beshud Hazara tribe, saying that it is the only Hazara tribe to bear a Mongol name. This fails WP:GNG and for all we know, Besud could be a Mongol family name and not an ancient tribe's name, which would make this article WP:CB. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 15:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Behsud (Hazara tribe). Unsourced, WP:OR at best. Ansh666 17:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Flor

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

Also including in this AFD:

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

No indication of notability for the brand; it merely seems to exist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too don't really see any reliable sources although I guess there may be some in Brazilian. Mabalu (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim for notability. I would have nominated for speedy. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ZERO claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Delete -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle National Hockey League team

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

Seems like a good case for WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't meet notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The articles from the Seattle Times and King5 Broadcasting seem to discuss possibilities, but no actual decisions. All else are promotional / primary sources from Facebook and the campaign website. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note There was an edit conflict while I was using page curation that resulted in a PROD for the page along with this discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure speculation, obvious fail of WP:CRYSTAL. Reso lute 14:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation and looks like obvious redirect to who ever owns NHL Northwest twitter/facebook page campaigns. Yearsago (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP wait & see what happens. this subject is getting a great deal of coverage in sports news currently, & the article is reasonably neutral & non-speculative (with room for improvement, ofc) Lx 121 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, this is a frequent problem at the Hockey WikiProject ... delete "Seattle," insert "Quebec City, Hartford, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Saskatoon, Tierra del Fuego ..." This is the answer to the "Keep" advocate above, because if we kept every ephemeral article about every supposed Sure Thing Move over which bored sportswriters at deadline are speculating, we'd have articles for dozens of teams that never did and never will exist. WP:CRYSTAL violation, obviously. Ravenswing 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Premature speculation, per WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NOTNEWS also apples here. - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. If the situation changes, can always be re-written/re-created. Patken4 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NHL Northwest is just using Wiki as an advertisment forum. Seattlehawk94 —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seattle never really had a National Hockey League team. Without the SuperSonics, their two current professional franchises are the Seahawks and the Mariners. Delete. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Ansh666 03:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above points. Much of this information could be merged into the Potential National Hockey League expansion article until such time as a franchise relocates to Seattle or the city is awarded an expansion franchise. shaggy (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by WP:CRYSTAL- complete speculation. If the vote is nay on 02 JUL 2013, we likely won't know for weeks where the potential franchise will be anyways. Fiset35 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Glendale council vote passed, Coyotes are staying in the desert. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 11:01, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

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. No consensus to delete after two relistings. There is mentioning of moving the article to The Hanging Garden (song) which can be discussed further on the talk page of the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Single

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

I am not convinced that this subject warrants its own article. Lachlan Foley 08:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Somewhere in here there is a notable single that reached #34 in the UK Singles Chart. We seem to have a little confusion in the articles related to this - it was a regular single with two tracks (FICS15 - although it isn't listed as a single in the band's discography article), with an additional limited double-7" format with 4 tracks (FICG15), as occasionally happened in that era. I would suggest that it be treated as an article about "The Hanging Garden", the regular single which is the primary release, which I believe is notable. It is reviewed here. It was also recorded by AFI and the song's title was taken by Ian Rankin for the title of one of his books. Enough has been written about the band that it seems unlikely that this isn't covered further. It would also have been reviewed in the music press of the time. --Michig (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charting single that was covered at the time of the release. I've got a print copy of the NME review (10 July 1982, page 21); not a positive review, but it refers to the double 7" release in a review titled "The Hanging Gardens" -- Foetusized (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Hanging Garden (song) per Michig. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 04:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep charting single, notable band. Not really seeing the problem here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All India Station Masters' Association

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

non notable trade union.In my opinion even if there are are more than 1000 members it cannot be considered notable unless it has significant press coverage.If such a page is encouraged then all such trade unions of government departments will be motivated to get their own page Uncletomwood (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many news references such as this one from the Times of India: [24]. The union's role in such strikes as the 1974 railway strike in India has been noted in at least two books: [25], [26]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Major League Soccer on television. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MLS Wrap

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

Article stub not notable. And all relevant info is already on Major League Soccer on television. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or re-direct to Major League Soccer on television). The subject is far from the notability that would warrant an article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above comments. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. I never even heard of this talk show. Should be a speedy deletion as far as I'm concerned. – Michael (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 09:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt and ice challenge

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

Unlike the "cinnamon challenge", which is well referenced and fairly popular, this article fails notability policy: all the references provided relate solely to people being injured from attempting this "challenge", which implies that they are stupid, not that the challenge itself is notable. These sources apply directly to self-inflicted behaviour which falls under self-harm, with the results of this "challenge" being frostbite, but the act of "sticking your hands in salty ice water to impress people" itself is not a notable event, just as "lighting a match" is not notable compared with the results of arson or burns. Also, because there are no reliable sources to support the medical viewpoints of this trivial "challenge" or examples showing that some people are harmed, whilst many are not, this article presently falls under WP:UNDUE, as it only presents the "challenge" as dangerous, and the risk-factor seems fairly hyperbolically stated. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets ample coverage in reliable sources such as the CBS report. [27] Dream Focus 09:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational. — Cirt (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (reluctantly): I don't see why this is important, but there seem to be multiple reliable sources discussing it in some depth, so it meets basic criteria, I believe. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InternMatch

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

Advertisement, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The general opinion here is that this individual has received just about enough non-routine coverage to be considered notable. The consensus is not particularly strong, though, as it's clear it's not entirely agreed as to what constitutes routine coverage in this context. ~ mazca ^talk 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Nam

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and only routine sports reporting for coverage so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gained notability through the contract controversy with Bellator and his top ten ranking in the Bantamweight division. Most of his references are, in fact, not routine sports coverage. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references are either routine sports or BLP1E since they're about his contract dispute.Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contract dispute is just one facet of his notability. WP:BLP1E is for non-notable people who happen to be in a single news cycle for their participation in a single event. He's also notable for his victory over a top-tier organizations' champion (Eduardo Dantas) and his nine or so months as a top ten ranked fighter. Just look on Google News and you'll see plenty of non-trivial stories, interviews, bios etc. Luchuslu (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet any notability standards, coverage seems routine (except for contract dispute).204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Entity of the Void (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm suggesting a weak keep simply because I heard that he was ranked in the top 10 in his division after he KO'd Bellator's champion, now I can't verify this but if someone can prove it to be true then him once ranking in the top 10 is just as strong as him taking 3 fights for a top tier fighter. Add it to the page as well and state it on this page otherwise no-one can review their opinion on it. 109.156.233.119 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Subjective ratings are not the best way to determine notability, especially when other criteria already exist. I don't think Nam actually meets any of the existing notability criteria, but he has some things that support notability claims. There is some non-routine coverage of him (regarding his contract dispute) and he did defeat Bellator's reigning world champion (albeit in a non-title bout). Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Da Dope Game 2 Da Rap Game

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

A not notable independently released "album". Clearly fails WP:NALBUMS. A check of Billboard.com shows that the album never charted and has not been covered by reliable sources. STATic message me! 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seconded. Non notable, non charting, fails WP:NALBUMS. Chimpfunkz (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think its possible to find reliable sources for an independent album, released 13 years ago. Koala15 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary. If it were notable, it would be possible still to locate sources (which I have not done). —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note to Keep !Voters: Neither WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC have quotations in the media as an indication of notability. The guidelines call for either wide citation in academic papers or detailed profiles in independent media, neither of which is fulfilled here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Ghorbani

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

Only independent claim of notability is being quoted one time in the New York Daily News. The rest of the cited references are promotional for either the individual or his medical practice. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC; his citations at Google Scholar are minimal. Fails WP:GNG; he is occasionally quoted in the media (I found one other instance, from NBC News), but there is nothing significantly ABOUT him. The article is basically promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable through multiple reliable sources quoting him as a doctor / medical health expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargavi RC (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ghorbani is notable and meets general notability guidelines. He is on multiple reliable sources including CNN, Business Wire, and NY Daily News. Ghorbani is also certified by the American Board of Anesthesiology. LAHealthVol (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has several publications that deem him notable. Internationalpanda36 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete after two reslistings. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Sednev

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

How is this person notable enough for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan12w (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm confused about why you consider this non-notable since you never gave any reasons. A notable novel was written about him that mixes both fiction and fact. This book is also about him. There is also [28]. This person was not just an insignificant kitchen boy, but was a big help in reporting how an imperial family was murdered. How is someone who brought us such important details due to be being a witness as well as have two books about him non-notable? SL93 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt per G12 by Jimfbleak. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octadecimal Classification

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

Apparent COI editor seems to be promoting their own work. The references are dubious. This same article was created twice before as a copyvio of the author's own web site here. The content has since been removed from the COI editor's website, but may still be a copyvio. No evidence of this subject being notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 01:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, apparent COI and, IMHO, original research too failing GNG. Me too I've found the same blog. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: original research, self-promotion, and in no sense an encyclopedia article, but rather an essay. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have trouble even understanding what this is about, at first I figured it be a numbering system, then a library system, now I have absolutely no clue. IF this is a topic we should have an article on, it needs some massive TNT. Charmlet (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Ultraexactzz per CSD R2, with comment "Page was (mostly) userfied." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WrappedHersheys.com

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

This was moved from Articles for Creation by the creator without a review. I found no notability for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember deleting this in the past and moving a copy to the editor's userspace over issues of notability. Another of the speedy reasons was that it read like a promotional article, although the user had removed a lot of the worst of it. I know that this was a project for school, so I wanted to give them something they could work on. In any case, this just isn't a notable company. There are trivial mentions here and there, but nothing that would really count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Tokyogirl79. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author attempted to userfy this, but moved it to User:WrappedHersheys.com (a nonexistant user). I moved it back to their userspace at User:Eromansky/Sandbox. I also deleted the cross namespace redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kalinski

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources apparently. The rather excessive list of external links which were in the article [29], do not mention Matt Kalinsky. From google scholar, H-Index is about 7, the calculation in the last AfD was based on adding a biologist in as well. I'm amazed that a BLP with no sources and where no sources were presented during AfD managed to close as no consensus last time, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (for a while). I also find a GS h-index of 7 in a well cited field. Totally inadequate to pass WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A h-index of 7 (which is also what I calculate) isn't enough for WP:PROF, and we already have the Trojan wave packet article to cover his main research topic. Searching finds nothing else that even remotely suggests notability. Incidentally, I note that his name is actually Maciej Kaliński, and that he no longer seems to be involved with academia. -- 202.124.88.41 (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article claims Kaliński "discovered" Trojan wave packets. The article on that topic doesn't say so, however, and the first (1994) article on the topic ("Lagrange equilibrium points in celestial mechanics and nonspreading wave packets for strongly driven Rydberg electrons") has Kaliński as the middle of three authors. -- 202.124.88.41 (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and delete Just to feed you some more bibliometric data. Scopus gives 3 papers by M. Kalinski, with 10 citations in total and h-index=2 (note that Scopus is not the best with pre-1995 papers), whereas Web of Knowledge (ISI, Thomson Reuters) lists 12 papers (Kalinski is the first author of 7 of them), 2 conference communications and 1 reply to the letter-to-editor, with 294 citations in total and h-index=7. I'm not much into physiscs, but I do assume that these aren't extraordinary academic achievments. Rather normal; nothing fancy. Therefore without good, external sources to prove his notability, I see here only a regular PhD, doing a regular science.Masur (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. It appears that his discovery, Trojan wave packets, is notable, but its notability does not automatically pass to him per WP:NOTINHERITED, especially because it was work done while he was a student and it is difficult to disentangle his contribution from that of his advisor and more notable coauthor Joseph H. Eberly. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the contributions of his coauthor Iwo Bialynicki-Birula, who was first author of that 1994 paper cited above. That was the paper which actually defined the concept, and which assigned the name when it stated "Such nonspreading wave packets are direct quantum analogs of the clusters of Trojan asteroids orbiting the Sun near the stable Lagrange points L4 and L5." It's clear that Kalinski contributed to the topic during his PhD, but it does not seem that he "discovered" it. -- 203.171.196.24 (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Matt Kalinski cannot pass WP:PROF in that sense and he works privately. He entered the US on student visa F-1 with Polish passport. This visa implies that he had to leave US to Poland 10 day after graduation. Poland however requires that all Professors have to have President of Poland nomination. US PhD cannot be under Polish President and he must work privately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattedia (talk • contribs) 07:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means, but certainly he is working privately, in some capacity that doesn't seem to be generating further publications. -- 203.171.196.24 (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm really hoping you're not Matt Kalinski (WP:AUTO). -- 203.171.196.24 (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the possible conflict-of-interest, I'm confused by Mattedia's comment, because it is labeled keep but it seems to be arguing that he is not notable. In any case it is certainly possible for people not employed as academics to pass WP:PROF. I could cite examples but I think that would be a distraction. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is possible for people not employed as academics to pass WP:PROF (except #5 and #6), but the dearth of Google hits suggests that Kalinski is not currently employed in any WP:PROF-passing way. All we have to go on are his existing publications, which seem to me insufficient. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. No evidence that subject meets the requirements of any notability guideline, especially WP:PROF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asuman Güzelce

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

Does not seem notable, text is confusing e.g "born in" The ChampionMan 1234 00:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Up to now, I haven't heard her name. But in yahoo search there are more than 200 links to her name. Since she was the recipient of a literary prize, maybe we shouldn't rush to delete the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Turkish google returns some good sources[30]--Iniciativass (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YaNabi.com

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

The only sources are alexa info, a source not even talking about his site itself but citing the statement that other such websites exist, and two passing mentions of comments on the site's discussion forum. In this case, it fails both criteria of WP:WEBCRIT as well as WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The mentions of the content in some sources (there's a couple more in GScholar) do very little regarding WEBCRIT, and there's simply no significant coverage available about the website itself. — Frankie (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I've found the name of this website on some blogs and forums but it doesn't establish notability.Farhikht (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Inside

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted late last year as non-notable. Article seems sufficiently different to not be speedy eligible, so asking community to evaluate. Camw (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable through multiple reliable sources citing it as international project management software and technology awards. Botidr 08:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete As far as I can tell, the awards are for software within the Lotus Notes community, not for project management software in general. This is not sufficient for notability. Since the WSJ article seems to be merely an announcement of the awards, I'm not sure its relevant for notability either. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wall Street Journal and multiple other awards should be enough on this one for notability. FifthCircuit (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again broadly as per my position on the previous AfD. The WSJ piece that has been added is attributed there to "Marketwired" which describes itself as a "Newswire service for online press release distribution" [31] and is an announcement of an award from TopTenREVIEWS; neither the award nor the press release are clear evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though a few references should be cleaned up, subject received multiple awards deeming notability and there are numerous reliable sources noting this project management software. Rhaulumajik (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Morais Alvares

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

Fails WP:GNG, no indication in the article why he should be notable nor sufficient Google hits to give that indication. The Banner talk 18:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried searching for results in Spanish and Galician, but there's only a couple of passing mentions from news sources, and the rest are reproductions from the party's website. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Derevenko

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

I did a Google search and can't find much about him. His dad's notability is even in question with me, but I can see improving that article and maybe including something about Kolya in there. I don't believe he merits an article of his own. Dan12w (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing here. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much not sourced information and no notability evidence, single interview doesn't grant it. Ignatus (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notability that's even really being claimed here is his family relationship to another person of uncertain notability — and notability is not inherited. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KTS/KPYM software

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KTS/KPYM software

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

Open source SSH/telnet server. Fails to establish notability, no third-party references. The project has started on January 2011. (Proposed deletion removed by creator.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reviews or commentary in reliable sources, only download sites and a couple of forums. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no sources

Johann von Holthov-Chikoff

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

A biographical article about a 19th Century Russian writer that, as far as I can see, fails both notability and verifiabilty criteria. Apart from a recently-created corresponding entry on Spanish Wikipedia here, there are no Google hits whatsoever. The article asserts that the subject was a close friend of Pushkin, so it is not unreasonable to assume the name would appear in at least one biography of Pushkin, if only mentioned in passing, but there are no results on Google books, nor are there results for any of the works attributed to the subject. The only source offered is an autobiography from 1861, but again, there are no results for this work. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching this is going to be a problem, because of translation and transliteration difficulties. To search adequately, it's going to be necessary to reconstruct the Russian titles of the books. (and the Russian spelling of the author's name). DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that transliteration issues are a problem here, although there are issues of sourcing as if the one and only source offered for this article is the memoirs of the subject, WP:RS wouldn't be satisfied. However, even allowing for transliteration problems, I think it is a source of concern that the only online mentions of the works of the subject is one of them being used as a source for an article on Spanish Wikipedia (on the Jakov family), created by the author of this article. I know I am stepping over the boundaries of WP:AGF here, but the only reason I am not challenging that article on Spanish Wikipedia is my lack of Spanish; there are very significant problems with that article particularly with sources and with the use of images, where an image purporting to be of a 16th-Century nobleman is actually a greyscaled and horizontally-flipped image of a 19th Century image of a Cossack. (If you want to compare the images: this is the image uploaded by the editor here and here is the 19th-Century image on Wikpedia here. I noticed the similarity when I saw this edit removing the 19th-Century image from the English Wikipedia article on Don Cossacks. (There is a second image on Wikipedia that has suffered the same fate: compare this image of a Boyar from the 17th Century with this image of the purported 16th Century Count_Aleksandr_Nikolayevich_Jakov ) So, in for a penny, in for a pound: as I have already questioned the intentions of the article creator, I'll go on to suggest this article is a step in the creation of a false genealogy for the Jakov family on Wikipedia. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even with my limited knowledge of Spanish, it is obvious that someone is trying to graft the oddly unrecorded Jakov noble family on to very well known family trees. The Spanish article, for example, has the founder of the Jakov family as an illegitimate son of Lengvenis - by a mother whose surname appears not once on the internet. Highly suspicious per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and per WP:DUCK. I suggest that all of contributions of the SPA editor who created this article be purged. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

on the internet ? the mother of an illegitimate Lithuanian noble child from the 15th century? I find nothing exceptional in a Lithuanian noble family--and there were a great many of them--being ultimately related to a royal illegitimate progeny. it may or not not be historically accurate, but it's not suspicious. It may be a total fraud, or just the sort o over ambitious family geology we see a lot of here.

But we're discussing this particular person, and the question is whether we can find the Russian books, if we can reconstruct their titles. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my point. I am not surprised that the supposed ancestress of the alleged Jakovs is not mentioned anywhere online; I am surprised that her surname does not appear anywhere - an authentic Russian or Ruthenian patronymic surname should get some Google-hits, no? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such person ever existed. Yet another hoax from User:LordCarisbrooke who should be indefblocked for his pranks.--Ghirla^-трёп- 07:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have a look at this blog-post, especially at the name of the author: Realeza y Nobleza Rusa. This should give us other questionable families to look out for... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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