Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 27 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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 keep. I'm closing this early as an article to be retained. Verified geographic regions are typically retained on English Knowledge (XXG) (see WP:MAPOUTCOMES). Also, this administrative district of Taipei City clearly passes point 1 of WP:GEOLAND. Last, but not least, is that the consensus in this discussion is for the article to exist. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 12:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Zhongshan District, Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It only contains three sources and lacks proper information. WorldTraveller101 23:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep It is the consensus to keep articles about legitimate inhabited geographic places, hamlets, or cities, even if they are just a dot on some map, no longer inhabited and only contained a few inhabitants. This district is inhabited by over 200,000. The nomination does not seem to be grounded in policy. Edison (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:OUTCOMES. A real place inhabited by real people. Stalwart111 06:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
And I've cleaned it up and added a couple of references just to put it beyond doubt. Cheers, Stalwart111 07:02, 28 April 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 speedy keep. SK2E: deletion rationaile is blatantly wrong/mistaken. Article is not a BLP; and even if it were, that's what WP:BLPPROD is for - if it wasn't referenced, which, in fact, it is (and was at the time of nomination). I might also point out that nominating an article for deletion 20 minutes after creation is somewhat WP:BITEy. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Marbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least one reference to a reliable source. This one doesn't PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • :Keep I suggest you take up your sourcing issues with the editor responsible for putting that source on Moon-eyed people. He's a shifty type though. You want to watch his actions (and deletion logs). Always using unreliable sources is that Dougweller. Can't trust him an inch... Colonel Moon (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Where to start? The gentleman died in the 18th century, so why does the nominator refer to him as a "living person"? The previous recommendation to keep reads strangely to me, and April Fool's Day was weeks ago. A Google Books search shows this person was notable. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:59, 27 April 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 redirect. Doesn't meet notability standards, but harmless as a redirect. --BDD (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Voyager (Funk Trek album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, no sources that aren't primary. Self-released with no professional reviews of note. Other album is at AFD too. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:59, 27 April 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Mittapalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as this article fails basic verifiability and has no reliable sources. It is unusual to recommend a geographical place for deletion, but this one appears to be a hoax. Much of the text was copied from an earlier version of the Bandarlapalle article. The creator was a one-shot account Mitta palli12345, contributions. I have searched extensively and not found any sources for this place. In the "2001 Census of India: List of Villages by Tehsil: Andhra Pradesh" (PDF). Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. there was no listing for "Mittapalli" in Chittoor district, and none of the entries under "Ramakuppam" were close. In the 2011 census listing for "NPR Report: Andhra Pradesh: Chittoor: Ramakuppam". there were only two entries under "M": Manendram pop. 1771, and Muddanapalle pop. 2425. There are valid places named "Mittapalli", both in Andhra Pradesh and in Tamil Nadu. There is the kotha, or sub-village, which has a post office (PIN 507167) in Khammam district, not in Chittoor District. "Mittapalli, Khammam" which is in Thallada Mandal, also appears on some maps, "Distance from Khammam to Mittapalli, Khammam"., 17°10'16" N, 80°25'30" E. There is a village named "Mittapally"" in Luxettipet mandal, Adilabad district, Andhra Pardesh, "NPR Report: Andhra Pardesh: Adilabad: Luxettipet".. There is the well-attested Mittapalli in Uthangarai taluk, Krishnagiri district, Tamil Nadu, "NPR Report: Tamil Nadu: Krishnagiri: Uthangarai".. And lastly there is an apparently unrelated Sri Mittapalli College of Engineering, and Sri Mittapalli Institute of Technology for Women, located between Guntur and Chilakaluripet on National Highway 5 at Tummalapalem. However, there is no evidence of a Mittapalli in Chittoor district. I brought this here rather than prodding it, because it was a geographical place. --Bejnar (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:02, 28 April 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. I have withdrawn my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Idris (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All the sources offered and all that I could find by Googling are WP:PRIMARY and thus unsuitable. This could be a case where sources may soon become available to establish notability and the article could be resurrected. But Knowledge (XXG) is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. I'm satisfied that the Pragmatic Programmers article cited by 130.226.133.44 meets the requirement for significant independent secondary coverage. Msnicki (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You're kidding. This is what you count as source that would contribute toward the significant coverage required to establish notability? Here's the whole thing: "In Coq, but also in other dependently typed languages such as Agda , Epigram , and IDRIS , properties of type system can be expressed as types of the inference algorithm." The bibliography gives the reference as a 9-page paper by the author of the language. That's it. This doesn't come close. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep A Google search on "Idris programming language" hit 73,600 results (while 31,300 on "Agda programming language" and 39,500 on "Epigram programming language"). The notability of Idris in academia has become significant enough recently. --soimort (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. But I concede that suitable sources establishing notability may appear soon. I just don't think they exist now. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I needed a little time to review it first, but this appears to be a good independent source. I am withdrawing my nomination. Again, thank you. Msnicki (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:GNG asks the the subject should have received significant coverage, described as, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ..." Can you cite one or two examples out of the mentions you found which you feel satisfy this condition? It's possible I missed a good source, in which case I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. But I kind of need to see it, first, because I couldn't find it. Msnicki (talk) 15:40, 29 April 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 'Speedy keep. See Knowledge (XXG):Speedy keep#Applicability point number 1. Nobody has actually suggested deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Francesca Hogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose a redirect to List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants as per precedent set by this AfD for Russell Hantz. Hogi played twice and was an equal contributor in both, therefore she should be redirected to the contestant list over either of the two seasons she appeared in. Even though she appeared in two seasons, this still falls under WP:BLP1E, as she is not notable outside of the series, and is barely notable within the series itself. As I stated in this article's first AfD, "there is no information on her page right now that would not fit on the pages for both seasons. As other editors stated, her statistic is trivial and does not merit having her own page," and "the African-American reality stars list is not cited and, after a brief search as suggested by User:DrumstickJuggler, I can't find it. Also, the Dalton Ross quote ("Nobody has given you as much praise as we have.") is not in the cited article and, as discovered after another quick search, is only found on the Knowledge (XXG) page in question and other pages that have been lifted directly from it. All of the properly cited and notable information already exists in the Redemption Island and Caramoan pages, and the information in the "Reception" section is either trivial, uncited or cited from a non-reputable source. Using Survivor Sucks as evidence for someone's reception is not valid, as there are supportive and non-supportive threads for nearly every player that has played Survivor." Katanin (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 April 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 01:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Prabhjit Singh Uppal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable at all. Google search confirms he barely exists but that is all. See for yourself. Also, article created by someone with promo username. Ramaksoud2000 20:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Edit: czar · · 21:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Barely exists" Either the subject exists or does not. In all fairness, I ask the nominator to strike the word "barely" from the nomination or otherwise re-word. And then, I am left to agree that no coverage exists for the subject and take the position of Delete. If significant coverage surfaces, I would be pleased to change my position To summarize: the subject exists; the coverage of the subject barely exists; the notability of the subject does not exist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON, and there is insufficient coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful Strangers (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been prodded, twice, but anon IP has a tendency to remove the tag. Unnotable book, - i.e. no professional reviews, by Glenna Maynard, who's also up for AFD for being unnotable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt (as the person who PROD'ed it). Non-notable author's non-notable first book from minor publisher, with zero sources available: a very long way short of WP:NBOOK. The only text in the article apart from the lead sentence was a WP:COPYVIO reproduction of what appears to be the book's back-cover blurb, which I have now removed three times and counting. Likewise, the image appears to be WP:COPYVIO, despite the claim of the poster that it their own work. For bonus marks, an IP editor of the page left an edit summary saying they'd been asked to edit the page by the book's author. Page creator and an IP editor have removed deletion tags more than once. Dricherby (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the page creator states on his talk page that the book is self-published. Possible WP:COI there, too, and I suspect the page's IP editor is the page creator. Dricherby (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


  • Here are a few reviews
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17279449-beautiful-strangers
http://glennamaynard.blogspot.com/?zx=1f53a864da1ef8af
http://maggiethom.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/beautiful-strangers-by-author-glenna-maynard-brand-new-release/
http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Strangers-Masquerade-Series-Volume/product-reviews/1484076338/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/175-9113506-7031429?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
http://romanceaddiction.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/review-of-beautiful-strangers-by-glenna-maynard/
http://stickgirlbookreviews.blogspot.com/2013/03/beautiful-strangers-cover-reveal-by.html?zx=7906b58c964335c5
Here is a photo of the physical book: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=495568697157703&set=a.459385880775985.93162.458646394183267&type=3&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshaunsweeney (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
We accept that the book exists but people's blogs and customer reviews on Amazon aren't classed as reliable sources by Knowledge (XXG). To establish that this book is notable and therefore should have a page on Knowledge (XXG), you need to show that it meets the criteria at WP:NBOOK. Dricherby (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The deletion of the disambiguation page won't be necessary. I renamed it to "beautiful stranger" singular and found quite a few mentions of various different things with the title, all of which have links to things or people that currently have articles on Knowledge (XXG). One or two of the articles are a little squidgy notability-wise, but there would still be just enough to warrant keeping the disambiguation page after/if this book's article gets deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Everything that I have submitted I have right to use and permission of the author. Furthermore that is the same pic that is on all the pages for review. I guess if this doesn't doesn't count as a book from an author then you should delete every book and every author on Knowledge (XXG) because none of them started off famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshaunsweeney (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:PERMISSIONS for the procedure for posting copyrighted material with the permission of the copyright holder. As for the article itself, the question is not whether the book really exists. The question is whether it is sufficiently notable to have an article about it in Knowledge (XXG). Notability on Knowledge (XXG) comes from having significant coverage in reliable, independent sources: the guidelines are here. If a subject does not have that, it is impossible to write an objective article. As far as I can see, this book does not yet have any coverage at all in reliable, independent sources. If it acquires such coverage later on, the article can be re-created then. This is why other authors and other books do have articles about them on Knowledge (XXG): with time, they became notable. Dricherby (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails to meet any criteria of WP:NBOOK. Keri (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete for utterly failing WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per the reasons above. The thing is, while many of us appreciate how insanely hard it is for self-published authors to gain coverage in reliable sources, that a book is self-published doesn't mean that it gets to skate over notability guidelines because of it. It's usually unlikely that a self-published book will get coverage, but it can happen. I always like to hold up Wool as one of the best examples of a self-published series that gained notability. In any case, that the book exists and/or is popular has little bearing on whether or not the book should be kept. A book can be popular but still never pass notability guidelines. For example, we have had books that have hit the NYT bestseller lists in some format, yet they still don't pass notability guidelines because that feat didn't give them any substantial coverage. I can say right here that getting upset over this fact won't change anything. If notability guidelines won't change for a NYT bestseller, it won't change for a self-published book. It's frustrating sometimes because there are books with big followings that never gain coverage in RS that I'd love to add, but these are guidelines that have grown and adapted over time out of necessity. Complaining here or demanding that we remove every book ever written won't change a darn thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 28 April 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 speedy delete. Ramaksoud2000 21:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Karmayog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Ramaksoud2000 19:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 19:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. I don't think it qualifies for A1 since it does identify the subject, but it definitely doesn't make a claim to notability. They appear to run a corporate responsibility ranking (CSR), but the only hits were press releases and not independent coverage. czar · · 20:21, 27 April 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. J04n(talk page) 11:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

International Pool Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Notability is not temporary" - This article is about an event that pretty much went belly-up its first year, and was gone by its third. No encyclopedic value. MSJapan (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:22, 27 April 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 speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure. 10:18, 28 April 2013 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) deleted page Super OS X Panther (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G3) czar · · 21:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Super OS X Panther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The software mentioned is apparently a clone of the corresponding Mac OS X software, and it doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. The external links supplied in the article do not satisfy the notability requirements as they do not appear to be sources that are significant enough to establish notability. In addition, the current content of the article appears to be copied from another Knowledge (XXG) article with minor changes. —DragonLord 18:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. I made the mistake of following this rabbit hole. It's a ten-year-old's web project for simulating OS X in MIT's Scratch environment (that's in look only, not functionality). The "system requirements" are all made up. Absolutely no critical coverage. I'll never get those ten minutes back. czar · · 20:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not put the article up for speedy deletion because it was not under one of the categories for CSD A7. I saw it as software, not web content. (As a side note, I'm not sure why you feel those ten minutes were important...) —DragonLord 21:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Changed speedy deletion to CSD G3. From what I can tell, the page is a hoax. —DragonLord 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
It fits A7 because the subject matter is web content—it isn't actually installable (though it may appear that way if skimming the bs). Perhaps it fits G3 too—we'll see what the mod says. And ten minutes are very important when there's so much else to do! czar · · 22:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Tagged with {{db-multiple}} for both A7 and G3. —DragonLord 22:52, 27 April 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 redirect to The Problem Solverz. Consensus is to merge but there really isn't anything to merge, if anyone disagrees I would be happy to userfy it to them for merging. Also, this close does not prohibit the creation of a disambiguation page. J04n(talk page) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Roba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 7-year-old stub contains info that (if even considered notable) could be incorporated at The Problem Solverz. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Duly noted.  :) IP editor(s) operating from 50.8.27.98 and 173.11.226.201 have been turning redirects into lackluster articles lately, for example at Neon Knome. Is an AfD warranted here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think an AfD is warranted. If you are confident that the topic is not notable per se, you can just revert to the redirect and integrate any verifiable content into the main article. You can also propose a merger and start a discussion on the talk page to see why other contributors believe that the topic should have its own article. Perhaps that would be an appropriate way to proceed. I wonder what other contributors think about this... --Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 1 May 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. J04n(talk page) 11:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Khoj: The Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plot of this film has been written in totally disgusting way. References are poor and lacks suitable links Md31sabbir (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The nominator's complaints are content issues, not reasons for deletion. (I assume the "disgusting" aspect of the summary is that the page had been vandalised to refer to one of the characters as "Captain Boobie"; I have fixed this.) English-language sources do seem to be lacking but the article has five sources, though I was unable to verify them as Google translate's handling of Bengali is so bad that I'm not even sure it's correctly identified them as Bengali. Dricherby (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
(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)
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. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Upper North Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Province no longer exists, was the product of a short-lived attempt of decentralization. Name of page is very general, and is not notable. - ℤiαηsh✍ 16:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the other six provinces in question:

North Province, Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Central Province, Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Central Province, Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Upper South Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Central Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Province, Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ℤiαηsh✍ 16:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Knowledge (XXG) is (rightfully) ultra-inclusive about populated places. This is the sort of material which not only should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia, but the sort of material which must be included universally and systematically. The fact that this short-lived province of the Maldives no longer exists is neither here nor there — it is a territorial unit which did formerly exist. The fact that the search name is ambiguous is a minor editing matter. Just change the name to Upper North Province (Maldives), QED. HERE'S a pdf of a Maldive government map showing the location of the province, less there be any mistake that this was a very important territorial unit. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:55, 27 April 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul Moss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

last AfD was 8 years ago, and this article remains largely uncited. Simply being a judge on a tv talent show is not enough. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - Anyone who thinks that the nature of the AfD process hasn't changed since 2005 needs to take a look at the "keep" rationales from the first debate on this subject. "Passes the Pokemon test"?!?! Hmmm. Lots of OTHERSTUFF and ITSUSEFUL kinds of arguments... The real question is whether this is the subject of multiple, substantial, independently-published pieces of coverage. Such as, for example, THIS interview with the youth weekly Malasian Today. That's one. THIS might be a blog, or not — my Malay is a little weak. Speaking of which, HE DOES have an article on Malay WP, although nothing in the sources there would seem to meet English WP's standards for GNG. No opinion as to inclusion, but it does seem that this is not "just" a TV talent show judge, but is rather a Malasian music industry figure of some note. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - He was a member of Aishah and The Fan Club (I verified for myself ). He is a judge for two Malaysian singing competition shows: Malaysian Idol, and One in a Million (Malaysian TV series). Being a judge on Malaysin Idol appears to be a big deal in Malaysia. There is this article in the Malaysian Star. This article covering the judges for One in a Million states he shot to fame as an Idol judge. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Member of a top ten band. Won a Anugerah Industri Muzik for his work on Innuendo by Innuendo (Taib, Shuib (11 April 1998), "Innuendo bags six awards including Song of the Year", The New Straits Times). Produced the top selling (guessing in Malaysia) English album of the year (Ramli, June (22 February 2004), "New OAG adds the Malay touch", New Sunday Times). Has a significant role in two notable tv series. Coverage about him includes (to varying degrees of usefullness) Taib, Shuib (30 October 2004), "The real Paul Moss", New Straits Times - Maizura, Intan (30 October 2004), "Getting the goss on Moss", New Sunday Times - Taib, Shuib (30 October 2004), "The real Paul Moss", New Sunday Times. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe that the sum total of the above sources are sufficient to merit a pass of the General Notability Guideline, which calls for an article subject to be substantially covered in multiple, independently published, presumably accurate sources. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 4 May 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 delete without any prejudice against recreation if the magazine sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Mediterranean scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The "scene" that is the subject of the article does not appear to pass the notability criteria laid down in WP:MUSIC. Obviously there are plenty of bands from around the Mediterranean that are notable, and Moonspell and Nightfall are name-dropped; however, the article specifically states that it concerns eight bands and their associated solo projects. None of them passes WP:MUSIC; their records are self-released (they set up their own label to release records, and distribution deals don't count, even if Audioglobe were notable). There is no indication that they have appeared at major festivals or undertaken international tours that have received substantial press coverage. There is an indication that they may have received some press coverage in some Italian print magazines but I can't access them, there are no page references or author names, and so at present we have no indiaction that this constitutes "significant coverage". Google Books and News show up nada, a general Google search doesn't reveal anything that I can see to pass WP:RS. There is usually a claim at this point that it is difficult to find sources for underground bands, but the truth of the matter is that if a band (or in this case, collective) is sufficiently underground that I can't find any refs in, say, Terrorizer or Zero Tolerance, they don't warrant an article here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not surprised to see Baz nominate the article for deletion. I don’t know these bands and their label, and I doubt they are notable. --217/83 17:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:55, 27 April 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Bahaddarhat Flyover Tragedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While appreciating the author for taking the time to write it, the article is badly written and lacks sources. Even if it was a proper article, it does not seem to be a large enough event to warrant a page. Michael5046 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 27 April 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 19:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

4th World Congress of Biotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event. Even if the group sponsoring this event is notable (which in this case, OMICS Publishing Group is notable, but notorious would probably be a better word), not every event held by the group is notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 13:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment --- Since the conference has not been organized yet and no third party references are available,I feel article for already held conference can be created.Platyone (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps better to start with an entry on the conference series more generally. I don't know if it's notable, but an established series of academic conferences is more likely to be notable than any one instance in the series. As to whether this one is notable -- it's only the fourth, so not very long-standing. --Lquilter (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, more SPAM from Omics, not notable, delete per WP:NOT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, More references to the past conferences has been added.Seems to be Notable due to its rotation per year.Paul2025 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)— Paul2025 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck comment of indef blocked probable sockpuppet of User:Scholarscentral. Dricherby (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment The regular occurrence of the conference does not significantly add to its notability. The Arrow Media reference has to be considered questionable at best given the nature of Arrow Media (an online media / promotion site in service to the Indian tourism and hospitality industry, as defined on its About Us page). The publication of results from the 3rd annual conference does not indicate any notability for the 4th conference. There might be sufficient coverage for an article on the "World Conference on Biotechnology" taken as a series, noting significant results (if any) that have emerged from this series of conferences, but there is no need for articles on each individual occurrence of the series. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict) Based on existing references? I'd say no. (One man's opinion -- I'm not the final arbiter of these things.) I do not believe that references that exist on the present version of the page are sufficient to establish notability. I also note that the addition of two links ( and ) to basically the same article is somewhat disingenuous, making the article appear as if it had more real sources than it does. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, Thanks for your reply, I will search if I could find any third party references for World congress on Biotechnology and will create a page if sufficient references other than the above references are available..Paul2025 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, Please do let me know whether the following references can be used to create a page titled World Congress on Biotechnology
http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article=yes&pageid=28&edlabel=TOIH&mydateHid=24-12-2011&pubname=&edname=&articleid=Ar02800&format=&publabel=TOI
www.omicsonline.org/Biotechnology2011/
http://www.mdlinx.com/pediatrics/conference-details.cfm/22333/2nd-World-Congress-on-Biotechnology-2011-philadelphia-Pennsylvania/
www.omicsonline.org/biotechnology-2011/gallery.html
I feel since 1st,2nd and 3rd conference references are available, we can create World Congress on Biotechnology main page including all the other conferences as subtopics under the main title.
Please help me out, whether this can be done or not... Paul2025 (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked probable sockpuppet of User:Scholarscentral. Dricherby (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS carefully before suggesting any more sources. Notability requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources (plural). omicsonline.org is the conference organizer so is not independent and does not establish notability. The mdlinkx.com link is just an announcement: it is WP:ROUTINE coverage, which is not significant so does not establish notability. I wasn't able to read the Times of India article as it's behind a paywall: perhaps somebody who has access to it can confirm whether it is relevant. Note, however, that WP:NOTABILITY requires more than one source to establish notability so, even if the Times of India is suitable, we still need more. Dricherby (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Possible we can create a page for the series, but it requires more than proof its existence or the presence of publicity for it--especially when the publicity comes from the sponsor of the conference or the publisher of its proceedings. I'm not sure how to propose formal criteria, but the principle should be, as everywhere , that the series generally recognized in the field as major should have articles. Individual conferences are another matter--some very few of them are notable, and the presumption should be that they are not unless there's good evidence otherwise. For individual conferences that have not yet been held, I personally incline towards deleting as G11, becaue the purposeof such articles is always that of obtaining additional publicity for them, by those trying to treat WPas a medium for advertising. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 4 May 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 delete. The keep arguments successfully argued against WP:CRYSTAL but the WP:GNG issues still exist. If anyone wants to work on this in userspace until more reliable sources exist I will provide it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Franchise Hockey Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Franchise Hockey Manager" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

PROD removed after references improved. I'm still unsure whether it meets WP:GNG, but it's no longer an uncontroversial delete and should be discussed. - Jorgath (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 16:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete All things aside, this won't be released (supposedly) until September, so let's not stretch WP:CRYSTAL that much. The "coverage" seems limited to forums and whatnot, so I don't see how this gets past WP:GNG. Perhaps userify and then wait for it to actually be available and receive some substantial coverage. §FreeRangeFrog 01:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Anyone who pre-orders the game right now gets access to the Beta, so this isn't vaporware; people are playing the game right now. The game is a work in progress, and the release date is set for Sept. 3, 2013, but there has been quite a bit of coverage of the game beyond forums. Would more citations help? §Bradcwriter 12:38, 2 May 2013
  • Keep Why apply WP:CRYSTAL to this game but not others? Honestly, this discussion doesn't make sense. The game already exists in beta but won't have a final release for several months. Moreover, the company developing the game has a long history of bringing their products to market. This is a certainty for release and therefore I contend that the crystal ball should not be applied here. Mike (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, FHM does not break any of the WP:CRYSTAL rules. The game release date was announced and it comes from a company with a good reputation. Pre-ordering was made available and people have actually bought copies. I have. Pre-ordering allows one to play and test the beta version of the game. Months ago when the OOTP devs announced they would develop a hockey management game without announcing a solid release date, I'd have agreed that an article was premature. With the game's existence and release no longer a matter of speculation, and with physical evidence of it available, however, IMO, an article for it is as appropriate as one for any other upcoming game with articles here. --Yannzgob (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or Incubate/Userify. The real issue here is not whether this violates WP:CRYSTAL but whether it has the real world significance to justify an encyclopedia article. I found nothing to indicate that it has, though this may change when it is released. --Michig (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There are sources on this, but from what I can tell the sources seem to be fan sites, which may not be reliable sources.Transcendence (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep If game is in beta, crystal ball not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 5 May 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 merge to Ashur#Wives. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Naarah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need this article? We have articles on big-ticket people like Leah and moderately interesting people like Zilpah, but I don't see that this one adds anything. Ignatzmice•talk 13:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to her husband, Ashur. A mention in just one verse of the Bible means there will never be enough material for a stand-alone article. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTDIR as a purely genealogical entry; WikiProject:Religion's Notability Guide says "brief descriptions in genealogical records or church histories of specific individuals are not considered specific indicators of notability." Dricherby (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Correction: two verses in 1 Chr 4 "(5) Ashhur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah. (6) Naarah bore him Ahuzzam, Hepher, Temeni and Haahashtari. These were the descendants of Naarah." This doesn't alter my argument. Dricherby (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 April 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. Clearly no consensus to delete. Opinion here is split between keep and merge, and discussion on whether this should be merged to Deion Sanders can take place on the article talk page(s). Michig (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Leon Sandcastle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Leon Sandcastle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Not notable Clardak (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 17:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would've !voted for the page to be merged had NFL.com and other reliable sources not overdone the joke so much to the point of an abundance of reliable sources. I mean, come on. An NFL Combine bio on him? ZappaOMati 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge. A fictional character from a sports video game, based on a real-life football player, does not require a separate Knowledge (XXG) article. This sourced content deserves a two-sentence paragraph in the Deion Sanders article, with a redirect. Otherwise, delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Except Sandcastle first came from a Super Bowl commercial, not a video game, though I still could see a merge. I really don't know. ZappaOMati 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, "require" is a bad measure... we don't "require" any pages for Knowledge (XXG). We choose to create them if they are notable and if at least one enthusiastic volunteer editor has the time to create it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Paul, per WP:N, a presumption of notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Here we have a marginally notable topic, of limited encyclopedic value, with little or no substance, closely related to another subject which has undoubted notability, substance, and encyclopedic value. From this editor's perspective, this is a perfect candidate for editors to "use their discretion to merge two or more related topics into a single article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Response DL, what you posted is a clear and concise argument for deletion, and that's fine. My "beef" was with the word "require" as though Knowledge (XXG) would "require" us to write or not write an article on any subject. That's what I was getting out of it, and that was what I was commenting on. As for "encyclopedic value" that is subjective and varies from person to person. WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not a reason to delete. When you say "closely related to another subject" I'm forced to ask which subject: 2013 NFL Draft, Super Bowl XLVII, Deion Sanders, National Football League, or Under Armour to name a few.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:09, 29 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Glenna Maynard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable author. 1 book, in a very pulpy genre (romance), which has an article but may not be notable, possibly not by a mainstream publisher. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Here are a few reviews
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17279449-beautiful-strangers
http://glennamaynard.blogspot.com/?zx=1f53a864da1ef8af
http://maggiethom.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/beautiful-strangers-by-author-glenna-maynard-brand-new-release/
http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Strangers-Masquerade-Series-Volume/product-reviews/1484076338/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/175-9113506-7031429?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
http://romanceaddiction.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/review-of-beautiful-strangers-by-glenna-maynard/
http://stickgirlbookreviews.blogspot.com/2013/03/beautiful-strangers-cover-reveal-by.html?zx=7906b58c964335c5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshaunsweeney (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 April 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 delete, consensus was clearly established after relisting.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Arch Enemy Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this by way of a PROD on one of their other articles, Urban Monsters. The very big issue here is a depth of coverage and notability. The original state of the article was pretty blatant puffery and promotion, but I edited it down because there was the potential for notability. After removing all of the links that went to primary sources or things that didn't really pertain to the company, I was left with three sources. The issue is that while USA Today does write about this company, that the paper is working with AEE on a digital comic makes them primary sources. It's in their best interests to promote the company. There were mentions of (possibly) notable persons involved in the company or that they were involved with (potentially) notable projects that weren't done under the AEE banner, but none of that translates into notability for the company. A search brings up very little that can be used as a reliable source. I found two links that mention the company or its products, but the problem is that the second one through CBR is about a comic rather than the company, with the company being but the briefest of mentions. The one via the Telegraph is more promising, but doesn't show a depth of coverage. Even with these two sources added, this company seems to seriously fail WP:CORP. Other than that, all I could find was a post about some smattering of drama over a series they helped produce. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, Tokyogirl79. I apologize if this formatting for response isn't ideal. I've never done this before.

I appreciate your concern for the efficiency of the page for Arch Enemy Entertainment. However, your edits have not only misrepresented the company but omitted much of the scope that my original article provided. The edits have completely removed legitimate aspects of the company. (For example, "F00-Fighters" is not the only current project at AEE, and there is no mention of one of AEE's most well-known comics, "The Big Bad Wolf.") The edits have also removed numbers of sales and other company information. Information like this can be found on any number of other Knowledge (XXG) pages for artists/companies/etc: Stephen King's Knowledge (XXG) page boasts dollar amounts, publishing company Alfred A. Knopf, Inc contains a list of authors published through the house, and the page for Twitter has numbers of users, tweets, etc to explain its success and credibility. As I provided sources for claims made in the original edit to ensure their credibility, explaining numbers for AEE sales or listing projects in which AEE has participated is not "blatant puffery and promotion," but serves to further illuminate readers on the company itself -- the entire point of an encyclopedia.

I am willing to consider any changes you might suggest for a more accessible Knowledge (XXG) page for the company. However, I can say with absolute certainty that the current state of revision that you have presented is inaccurate and requires reevaluation. IDuchess (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

IDuchess (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. czar · · 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is still one of notability even if there are more projects. The company has received no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The sources you gave initially were all primary sources and even worse, had nothing to do with the actual company. It's grand that the people involved have been involved with other projects that might be notable or might be notable in their own right, but notability is not inherited. It's also full of various comments such as "movie star and R&B sensation". These aren't really neutrally written and are more along the lines of something you'd see on a press release or other promotional material. I'll be honest and say that this reads more like a promotion for the company than a neutral article. I'll also ask honestly: are you editing on behalf of the company? IE, are you an employee, intern, friend/family member, or anything like that? There's no rule against editing something you have a conflict of interest with, but having such a COI causes many to see notability where there is none and for them to take a more personal interest in the company. It's better to state any potential COI up front. Many of the links are primary at best and many are unusable as reliable sources. In fact, here's a rundown of the sources:
Source rundown
  1. This is a fan blog for G.I. Joe. Fan blogs are rarely, RARELY usable as reliable sources. What doesn't help is that this talks about something that Wilson did before he started the company. Again, notability is not inherited.
  2. This is a wikia. Wikias are never usable as reliable sources and are heavily discouraged from being used as even trivial or primary sources. This is mostly because anyone can edit them. It's the same reason why Knowledge (XXG) isn't usable as a RS for most journals and classes.
  3. This doesn't even mention Wilson, let alone the company.
  4. This one does briefly mention that Wilson is writing the script, but again- this doesn't extend notability to the company. To be quite blunt, he could have cured cancer before starting the company and that wouldn't extend notability to the company. It makes it more likely that the company would gain coverage, but it doesn't guarantee it.
  5. This is an IMDb link. IMDb cannot give notability and really, this was just inserted to show that the other person has done notable things that weren't really done with the company. Again, notability is not inherited. Him being a producer on Dexter is nice and all, but that has little to nothing to do with AEE.
  6. This is a link to Image's page. At best this is a primary source since they're the publisher. Primary sources can be used, but generally all it can do is prove that the comic exists. Nobody is doubting that the comic exists.
  7. This one doesn't even mention AEE. I'll be quite frank and say that in most cases, production companies in general (regardless of what they're producing) rarely get mentioned or gain any in-depth coverage. This does not exclude them from having to fufill basic notability guidelines.
  8. This is an album that Gibson wrote for the comic. Does not give notability and really, this was removed because it's a merchant source. It's not acceptable to use merchant sources in any article.
  9. This is a CNN link, but at no point does it actually mention the company. It'd help show notability for the comic, but having a notable product doesn't automatically give the company notability. It honestly helps if something actually mentions the company.
  10. iReports aren't usable as reliable sources because they're essentially blogs that anyone can write. It doesn't help that this seems to have been predominantly taken from a press release.
  11. This is a search result on Image Comics. This doesn't even really back up the claims of it selling well. On a side note, selling well does not equal notability. It makes it more likely that the company would gain coverage, but it doesn't guarantee notability.
  12. This is a link to a Rotten Tomatoes link for a movie. It would establish notability for the movie, but being mentioned in a movie doesn't automatically give notability. The reason is that the documentary was not solely focused on the company and there's always a question of how documentaries are slanted bias-wise. The documentary itself would maybe help as a trivial source for the company, but not much else.
  13. This is one of the very, very few sources that is actually usable and one of the few I actually kept.
  14. , , , , , I'm listing all of these together because essentially they're all the same. They're links posted about the comic through USA Today. USA Today is the one that they're running the comic through, so they're not usable as anything other than primary sources. No amount of primary sources will give notability. It doesn't matter where they're posted or how many you post. They don't give notability.
  15. This is an image of an illustration they made for an article that isn't even about the company. This can't give notability for the company. At most this is a trivial or primary source since they were hired by Esquire to create the illustration.
  16. This is a Huffington Post article. The thing about the HuffPo is that they're not really accepted as a reliable source here on Knowledge (XXG) because they're seen more as a blog than a RS. The company is only briefly mentioned and the article is more about someone else's work in other contexts. This could be a trivial source at most, but the general consensus as far as RS goes is that the HuffPo should be used to back up other, more reliable sources. If you are relying on them to give notability to keep an article, you're in trouble.
  17. This a link to Amazon. This is a merchant link that goes to the author page, which is always supplied by the author, the company, or someone representing him in some context. It's never usable as a source in any context.
  18. This was another one of the sources I actually kept. It's not really something that I thought entirely gave a depth of coverage for the company, but it was better than nothing.
  19. , , , , More merchant links. Highly inappropriate to link to. It shows the books exist, but existing is not notability and nobody is questioning that the books exist.
Really, the edits I made actually helped the article out more than the current version does. This is just too full of overly puffed up claims, none of which particularly help establish notability for the company itself. I can ask people to come in from the reliable sources noticeboard, but I honestly don't think that they'll differ much from my estimation of the sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


  • I am curious as to how USA Today can be considered a primary source. Though they provide an outlet through which AEE's comics are accessible -- just as Amazon Kindle does for the novels -- they are not the company itself. I understand information found on AEE's own website or domains is primary, but articles through another source are, by definition, secondary.
As far as my affiliation with the company, I am an intern with AEE. It is my responsibility to maintain the page and anyone reading this may assume whatever bias they might infer from that fact, but I will stress that I am receiving no payment/recognition for this effort. My concern about this page is not that of an employee whose paycheck is determined by the result, but that of a journalist who wants to see a proper representation of her article's source.
If your initial distaste for the article was due to (in your words) "overly puffed up claims," I am very open to edits on the word choice and presentation. The intent was not to "sell" the company but to explain its credits. If you also dislike linking to Rotten Tomatoes and other mentioned names, then please feel free to remove the links. Obviously, I was not trying to establish some kind of notability for the company through a movie reviewing website, but merely providing easy links for readers to clarify references.
I am also curious how you evaluate articles done in blog format, such as the Huffington Post. Years ago, perhaps this was frowned upon, but in a time when the majority of highly-publicized news outlets are even presented in this way, it seems there are few real "sources" left, by this definition. I heartily agree that personal blogs are still a wary place to find credibility, but I do not find that issue in at least the majority of the sources I provided (and the very few that Knowledge (XXG) might question can simply be removed).
You make valid points in your argument. However, I wonder -- if a company's principle's notability does not extend to the company, and neither does the company's products' notability, and neither do references within documentaries, and neither do statistics -- how any company could ever achieve "notability" at all.
I look forward to contributions from third parties. IDuchess (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
response
Any company that has a direct interest in AEE will be considered a primary source. In the case of USA Today it's in their best interest to show the comic in as good a light as possible. They want people to read the comic, after all. The problem is that even if the comic is the best thing in the world, we can't take their word for it. It'd be the same if the comic was published through the New York Times or through Image Comics. Anything they put out about the comic would be seen as a primary source because they are directly involved with it in some form or fashion. Very, very few companies will ever talk smack about their products, at least not without it being a calculated campaign to secretly promote it in some fashion. That's why anything like the USA Today sources would be seen as a primary source.
The idea of the products giving notability is sort of a troublesome one and something that's a little murky when it comes to corporations. They can extend a tiny bit of notability but the company still needs to have a lot of coverage about them specifically rather than just on the products. I've seen people argue about companies gaining some notability through their products, but I've also seen a lot of companies have articles deleted because they only had 1-2 semi-notable products and no true depth of coverage. It's frustrating, to say the least.
The issue with linking to the other claims in the article (as in RT and such) is that none of them really give that much notability to the company itself. That someone went on to work with the Dexter show is interesting, but it doesn't really pertain to the article about the company. Think of it this way: it's like someone writing an article about a banana farm, then going on to say that the foreman of the banana farm has a very nice singing voice and won the national singing contest. It might be somewhat interesting, but it doesn't really pertain to the subject of the article. Such an award might help the notability of the foreman, but it does nothing for the farm and for many makes it look like you're trying to claim more notability than there is. The reason why I say "puffed up" and "advertising" is because it's common practice for press releases and such to say "Sam Smith, producer of (project that has nothing to do with the company) and who later went on to make (movie that also had nothing to do with the company) is now working with the banana farm to produce green bananas". It reads like a press release. That's part of the reason I asked about COI- if you're more used to writing specific things for the company then more than likely you're more used to writing things with a promotional intent than a neutral article. I don't mean that to sound harsh- in the business world you're better off knowing how to write a promotional article than an encyclopedic entry. It's just that when it comes to writing things that do need to be neutral and more to the point for places like Knowledge (XXG), that type of writing style is hard to shake.
A good compromise might be to see if any of the founders of the company is notable. I was looking at Wilson's background and it looks like he might have a good amount of coverage. It might be better to create an article for him, include a sizable section in his article for this company, and redirect there. It's one of the loopholes when it comes to companies that might not pass WP:CORP. It won't be specifically focused on the company, but it'll give an area to mention the company without it being outright deleted. If this doesn't pan out, you can always WP:USERFY a copy into your userspace to work on until then. I'd have otherwise recommended including a small section in Gibson's article, which is still an option here if Wilson doesn't pass WP:GNG.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Clearly we are not communicating. Your first paragraph is repetition of what you already said earlier that did not make sense to me, your second paragraph is an explanation of a concept I already made clear I understood (I did not defend sources such at RT; I said you may feel free to delete those), and your third paragraph is not a "compromise," as it still results in deletion of a page that deserves to be kept.
(I must also add that you are making an incredible amount of false assumptions about me. For example, my main experience is not in business or in press releases. I have never written anything promotional for AEE.)
If you go back and read our past conversations, I think you can see that I am trying to work with you. That effort does not seem to be reciprocated. As we cannot seem to gain any traction between ourselves, I think we are in need of a moderator in order to determine this outcome. Thank you for your time. IDuchess (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • And I am trying to work with you as well. The sources from USA Today are WP:PRIMARY sources because they are ultimately the comic's publisher and have a vested interest in the company. I'm honestly not sure how else I can put this, but the fact remains that in this instance USA Today cannot and will not be usable as a reliable source that shows notability. They are publishing the comic and thus have an interest in promoting it and writing about it. Let me put it this way: if Vertigo were to publish a book about Neil Gaiman, that would be seen as a primary source since they have published many of his other works and have an interest in putting out books about him. Even if the book say awful things about his work and neither the company nor Gaiman told the author what to write, the book would be a primary source because Vertigo also publishes Gaiman's works. When it comes to publishers, whether they are newspapers or comic book companies, anything that comes from their desk about things that they are reprinting, creating themselves, or circulating would be seen as a primary source because it's ultimately their product. It's no different than if the comic were to have been printed by Image Comics. Image would still be seen as a primary source. As far as your intent, I'm trying to explain that since you are involved in the company you will be more inclined to write about it in a positive light. I didn't mean this to be an insult, just that since you are both a newer Knowledge (XXG) editor and an employee with the company, you are probably not used to writing neutral articles, discerning what is and isn't a usable RS, and what should or shouldn't be added to an article. You're more prone to write things in a way that could be seen as advertising, puffery, or just not really pertinent to the article. I've asked some people to step in, but I'm not sure how else I can really phrase that USA Today would be a primary source and not something that would show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The big issue here is a depth of coverage. The PW link is good, but remember- this is about a corporation rather than an individual. The majority of the sources in the article either don't mention the company beyond a trivial mention or don't mention it at all, as the CNN article doesn't. We're then left with three articles, one of which is more about one of the authors of one of the books than the company. The other two are good, but we need more than two sources to really show a depth of coverage. I just don't see that out there. (, ) The reason I'm so skeptical about the USA Today source is that the stories are all by the same person: Brian Truitt. The same guy that's been writing the articles promoting the comics is the guy that wrote the USA Today source that still remains on the article. I honestly can't consider the USA Today source still remaining on the article anything but trivial when you figure that the same guy has been posting tons of articles featuring and promoting the comic series on the USA Today website. I'm trying to think of a way to put this that doesn't minimalize him as a journalist when it comes to other things, but this guy is pretty much the press/promotion journalist for the series. Considering that a good portion of his posts about the comics have been to post them and go "here's the new one, isn't this awesome?", we have to approach any other articles he writes with extreme caution. It's just safer to consider this a primary source because he's been the only one who has written about the comic at all on USA Today. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • While I see your point about the single author, I don't agree with it. Brian Truitt is not the press/promotion journalist for the series, he's a journalist for USA Today.535 USA Today stories. Among other things, he's apparently their comic books specialist - not just for Arch Enemy, but all comic books. Take a look: DC, Marvel Image ... Those articles are written in the same tone as those about the Arch Enemy comic books, so I can't see accepting some of his articles, but not others. --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep.As an outsider to this argument looking in, I feel like someone needs to step in and say something. First and foremost,I'm not sure why people have to 'step in'.

It seems that the original question here comes down to links and sources. It seems that a young intern wrote an article about the company she works for. By the way, I checked, unpaid intern stands to gain no monetary gain from posting, which was one of the criteria for COI. Please feel free to check it out for yourselves. II also think it's rather inappropriate to ask such a question right off in trying to argue your case, Tokyogirl. So, Honestly, who do you work for? Where is your biased to? What's right? A good article? Hardly. Instead of doing the proper thing, which would be correcting an article, you asked for it to be removed. If your problem was links and sources, Perhaps it would be in the best of furthering knowledge for you to add to the argument instead of ripping it down. You wouldn't order a house demolished because the roof shingles are the wrong color, would you? Though, by your argument, it seems that might be the case. What you could have done was find a few articles and replaced them as sources. I see that you have the ability to edit pages, so what would the harm be in doing so?

As for fluff and puffy writing. I don't suppose anyone has looked at Arch Enemy Entertainment's fellow publishers? For instance, Archaia has almost nothing said about them, while Image comics has miles and miles of puffery. Please tell me you intend to trim the fat there as well, Tokyogirl. After all, you've made it your personal vendetta to trim this company's. I think everyone would benefit from your editing. Why don't you look at those pages, or better yet here is an exert from Tyrese's Knowledge (XXG) page. You acknowledge that the two worked together, yes? How does Knowledge (XXG) describe him? Couldn't you have substituted any wording you were unhappy with for this? Some version of your own, anyway. 'Tyrese Darnell Gibson (born December 30, 1978), also known simply as Tyrese, is an American R&B Singer, rapper, actor, author, former fashion model and MTV VJ. After releasing several albums, he transitioned into films, with lead roles in several major Hollywood releases.'

You argue that several of the articles were about individuals instead of the company itself, an obvious offense. Did you not look at context, or scope? Apparently not, given that those articles cited were in regards to the CEO, and his credentials in forming a company. They have everything to do with the company. According to your logic, the next president of a film studio cannot justify his placement in that position by past deeds, but by those done once he joins the organization. That is poor logic at best.

You've also cited that one of the articles, the Entertainment Weekly article, has no bearing on the company, that it is the story of one man. Once again, you fail to look at all at what is being said. The whole point was the image, which was done care of AEE. Of course, you're right, the article does not talk about them, it doesnt' mention their company at all. No, it doesn't show the scope of their work, it doesn't give notability to them at all, considering it is a nationally recognized publication.

While we are on the subject, I'm sure that Arianna Huffington will be utterly dismayed to learn that the news organization, which is read in a number of countries and sourced in dozens of wikipedia articles is a mere blog. A blog that sold for $315 million, according to it's own page. Perhaps when I start my own book review site/blog, it will do so dismally.

If you had such a problem with the links that iDutchess used as source material, you could have gone looking for some. Maybe taken 20 minutes out of trying to shut the page down. I found a few, in 20 minutes. WOuld you like to add them in somewhere? Perhaps in the copy about the company's CEO, which you decided to take down?

Too busy to find those? I'm sorry, I should have been more considerate to your desire to find other user to railroad a Knowledge (XXG) page.

Would you like some good news? I agree with your reasoning to pull the links and references to places that sell product. That is violation of Knowledge (XXG) rules. Rules that I have to look up based on you wanting to shut the page down. I doubt highly that everyone across the internet knows those rules. Clearly, iDutchess didn't, as she posted those links. Is that a mark against her? No, it simply means she didn't know. So, pull the Tyrese CD link. Wonderful. Pull the link to Amazon. Fine. Though, I do have a question. If only one of the books has been covered in media, where else would you propose people go for more information? This could be a question for Knowledge (XXG) on a larger scale, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. Since you have such strong convictions.

So how much to you think USA Today is paying? You wonder why I ask that? That is a link directly from the Think Tank page on Knowledge (XXG). It's a review. It is a generally favorable review of a comic. It's is a lovely review (one that I don't really agree with, personally). However, by your logic, the only difference between this article and the articles about Arch Enemy are the urls attached. Fairly biased, wouldn't you say? No? Because bleeding cool has no agenda? So, again, how much do you think Brian pays to build his audience? Here is a list of his articles. How many of these people do you think mention his work? How many of them source what he says? According to you, none. Brian pushes only one agenda, AEE. If you'd like, I'm sure Brian will tweet you something about where his bias lies. His twitter name is easily searchable.

I could rundown your list of problems, but it would be a waste of time. All they add up to is that you would rather knock the house down than change the shingles. You're not really looking at notability. Noting that the CEO of a film worked on the comic to one of the hottest films of the year means nothing, certainly not that he has a background in the industry his company was formed in. Nor does the fact that he worked with John Carpenter, the father of modern horror films. There's a link in case you are unfamiliar with his work. that has no bearing whatsoever on his company. No, some random person should start a company, who knows nothing about the industry they want to work in. No, you're right, it has no bearing on the company, those are his credits. Because no other page lists the credits of the people that make those organizations great. The biggest problem is that you don't want to take the time to do a little extra work, to 'sound like you know what you are doing'. Do you really feel this is making 'good edits'? Will you get a raise if you cut a bunch of pages?

Better yet, do you believe that the world should not be aware of a minority owned company? Or are you the DC of Knowledge (XXG), and want to see a recognized black figure get killed off? There are so few minority-run companies out there that they should be given a chance. Being in the world lexicon, which Knowledge (XXG) is trying to be, is that chance. Is it a big deal? No, I'm sure someone else out there could create a new page. It's the truth. However, I ask why? This one is here, it's up to date, and is factual. AEE is a known entity. While Bleeding Cool may not write about them every single day like the other companies on their site, or Comics Alliance, or Comic Book Resources, they are out there. They are a thing. How many other companies in comic books launch every single day of the week? That's right, the term is 'new comic book day'. I'm sorry I forgot. I think that such a company deserves recognition. I think they deserve a page. I've checked out all their work. First to do a book directly with Apple, on the LP system. First to tie in music. First to launch 7 days a week. That's a lot of firsts to be ignored. I noted that you took down figures that books did. I think beating Walking Dead #1 first printing is a big deal. Considering Walking Dead has a TV show.

Now, if you would like to believe that what you are trying to do is fair, unbiased, and reasonable, I will listen. So far, it hasn't been. You had a problem with links. I've solved that. You've had a problem with wording. That's been solved. What more is your problem? Is it with the company? Or the people involved? Or the fact that it's a minority owned business? Where does your bias lie. Clearly it is not on the side of facts or righteousness. Clearly it is not on fairness or duty to Knowledge (XXG). Why this company and not the thousands of other pages? Why not correct the page that has 'Kevin can suck my balls' in the description? Doesn't that warrant your time? Or is that another Admin's job? Did you do your due diligence? I think not. Actually, I know not. Not when I was able to deflate every single argument within a 20 minute time span. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilenceisSterling (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

SilenceisSterling (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. czar · · 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You may wish to read our policies and standards for having a stand alone article WP:N and its simplified version WP:42. You may also wish to read Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and stick to arguments that are going to carry any weight and a read of WP:RGW probably wouldnt hurt either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, I did try to correct the article. It's after trying to correct it and weeding out the unusable sources (which I've explained why they're unusable above), I realized that it didn't pass WP:CORP. As far as other articles go, I haven't edited those yet. It doesn't mean that I won't, just that as of yet I hadn't had a chance to. The existence of puffery and bloat on other articles doesn't mean that this article should be spared or that it justifies such content anywhere. As far as the links you've given as far as sourcing goes, one (this one, which is the same as this one) is already on the article. Another link is just a routine business listing, which is unusable as a RS. Another is from a nn blog, and the ANN link doesn't mention the company at all. We're not arguing the notability of the person who created it, just the notability of the company. I'm actually baffled as to why you're comparing a Bleeding Cool review to the USA Today articles. There is no comparison. Bleeding Cool is usable as a reliable source since they did not publish or work on the comic in any context. USA Today is not since they are the online publishers of the comic. The reason I mentioned that Truitt would be unusable as a source to establish notability is because he's also the one who is responsible for posting the articles that release the new issue, articles which are also supposed to promote the comic. It's his job. I'm not saying he wouldn't be a reliable source for things that aren't about the company itself, but as far as anything AEE goes? He has a conflict of interest in that case, which is why I wouldn't see anything he publishes as a source that would establish notability. He could be used as a primary or trivial source, but his articles cannot show notability for AEE. That's all I'm saying as far as why his articles can't be used. As far as many of your other concerns (inherited notability, etc), I've already put my arguments above. I have no personal vendetta against the company or anyone that works for it. I just saw an article that didn't pass notability guidelines and nominated it. I'm only one person. I can't edit every article on Knowledge (XXG) that has ever been made, nor can I revert every vandal's actions on Knowledge (XXG), especially if I don't know about it. It's humanly impossible for me to detect every page that needs work or has been vandalized. If you see such articles, feel free to WP:BEBOLD and pitch in some help yourself rather than chastise me for things that I haven't yet been able to find and edit. If it were possible for me to fix everything, I would. I simply don't have that much time or energy. Not even Jimbo does, and he's the father of Knowledge (XXG). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If you are responsible for the way that it looks now, I have no problems with the current look. All of the information there is up to date and factual. Regardless of whether the articles can be considered notable or verifiable, the fact that the comics exists is undeniable. The fact that the novels can be searched is undeniable. Other companies in the marketplace have two perhaps three sources. There are now six associated acceptable that deal with the company. I think my biggest problem here is the fact that in this day and age, the choice was destruction over assistance. As an administrator, you have more power than normal users. I cannot fathom the mentality of delete and ask questions later. It makes no sense. The whole goal of distributing knowledge is to make sure that it is right, and that people have access to it. I wold like to believe that is the purpose behind Knowledge (XXG), to help people stay informed. If AEE doesn't have a fast IT guy to update their website ever time a new book comes out, how else will people know what is happening? Considering that it is nearly impossible to find multiple articles at the accepted comic news sources, like CBR and Bleeding Cool, I would have thought that Knowledge (XXG) would be that place. That is what I have the hardest time understanding. If you have no real problem, then I don't see why you cannot simply fix and help. Personally, I have no problems with the article now. It also seems that individual pages should be created for the key people, so that information is not cluttering up the company page. I hope that this matter will be resolved soon. I hope that you are happy with the current status, and the current format. If so, I hope that the decision to delete has been rendered moot. It is now an article that gives the basic facts regarding a media company, no more, no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilenceisSterling (talk • contribs) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well... part of the problem is that Knowledge (XXG) isn't here to update people on everything every company does. We do inform, but we have to have a requirement on that data by way of notability. If something falls short then it has to be deleted, redirected, or merged into an applicable article. There's always the current option of merging information into Carey's article if all else fails and if anyone wants to help look to see if William Wilson passes notability guidelines and merge into an article for him, that's an option as well. It's just that we can't keep articles that don't pass notability guidelines. It'd be nice if we could, but we can't make an exception for one article and not for the next. And again, I did try to fix the article and what's currently up is pretty much my re-write of the article. Sometimes some articles just can't be saved regardless of how much work anyone puts into it. That's just the way Knowledge (XXG) goes. Sometimes we can find alternatives, sometimes we can't. Just because I nominated the article for deletion and still hold that it fails WP:CORP doesn't mean that I didn't try to save it at first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: We clearly need more opinions here from the third-party users. Currently, the discussion is revolving about the fact whether (i) USA Today can be counted as a primary source (clearly leaning to positive) and (ii) whether the remaining sources are sufficient to create notability according to WP:CORP (in this case, it is identical to WP:GNG).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would continue to argue against the USA Today sources being usable. After all, the vast majority of the USA Today articles are written by the same person who posts the comic updates for the series, a series that is being published online by USA Today. So to reiterate, the same person who is pretty much uploading the series is also writing articles that seem to uniformly praise the company. In my eyes these are pretty much the same as a press release, given that USA Today has a financial interest in having the comic do well as well as a financial interest in promoting the company producing the comic on their website. This is pretty much about the same as HarperCollins writing a book praising an author whose work they're publishing. If this stuff is considered a non-primary source then we should probably start counting press releases as reliable sources as well, because that's essentially what this boils down to. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah- I see that you meant positive as far as it being a primary source rather than it being usable. My bad! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, sorry for not being clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment As I implied above, while ordinarily I would consider USA Today a RS, the business relationship between it and AEE (apart from advertising space, which I wouldn't take into account) makes me think that in this case it's not. Miniapolis 14:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - The AFD review is simpler than proposed above. WP:GNG requires that the topic receive significant coverage. The article topic is the comic book production studio - a business. The USA Today articles are about the sci-fi comic series produced from the Arch Enemy Entertainment business. The USA Today articles are not about the Arch Enemy Entertainment business, so they do not count towards the business itself meeting WP:N. The comic book production studio itself has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nobility is not inherited and a business does not inherit notability from USA Today articles written about products produced by that business. Delete. Additional: As for this whole primary source discussion, Knowledge (XXG) articles usually rely on information from reliable primary third-party sources and reliable secondary sources. The problem comes when the primary source is a primary first-party source. Where a third-party source is a source of written information about a topic that is independent of that topic, a first-party source is a source of written information about a topic that is not independent of that topic. From Knowledge (XXG):Independent_sources#Summary, "an independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic."
    If USA Today holds a financial or legal relationship with the Arch Enemy Entertainment business or its products, then USA Today may be a primary first-party source with regard to the Arch Enemy Entertainment business and/or its products. As Tokyogirl79 points out in part above, the sources from USA Today are primary first-party sources, at least with regard to information about the sci-fi comic series because USA Today publishes the Arch Enemy Entertainment comics and has a vested interest in the success of those comics. However, the AFDed article topic is the comic book production studio - a business, and not the Arch Enemy Entertainment comics, so the primary source discussion regarding the comics topic is not so relevant to this AFD. In summary, the USA Today articles are not about the Arch Enemy Entertainment business, so they do not count towards the business itself meeting WP:N. The comic book production studio itself has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:GNG and WP:PROMO and WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not seeing a depth of coverage that would be sufficient enough for the subject to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and I have some WP:PROMO concerns too, not dissimilar to those expressed above. The latter is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem but the former is not surmountable. Stalwart111 06:08, 28 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Dimitar Hristov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable - not even mentioned in the references given - could be a PROD Peter Rehse (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 Comment: Looks like this is a real person and a Bulgarian champion , but I do not see any evidence so far that he was a 2012 European champion, or that he is notable according to WP:ATHLETE.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The ITF is a separate organization from the WTF (which is the TKD organization recognized by the IOC). In fact, there are now at least 3 separate ITF organizations each claiming to be the "legitimate" ITF. You can decide for yourself the value of their titles, even if they're sourced. Papaursa (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet specific notability criteria and lacks the sources to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete There is a lack of reliable sources supporting any claims of notability and my search didn't find anything significant. This is apparently a fairly common name since LinkedIn has 25 profiles for people of this name. The fact that I didn't see him mentioned in any of the sources given in the article doesn't help. The source provided by Ymblanter is interesting, but it doesn't give the organization and I think a national championship with only 4 or 5 entries per division is a bit strange. I'm willing to reconsider if some sources can be found to support the claims of being a multiple time national champion as well as a European champion. Papaursa (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete The notability claims of 'multiple national champion and the 2012 European Taekwon-do ITF champion' and 'sportsman of the year' are unsubstantiated by the references. I have replaced them with {{cn}} until an actual direct reference can be provided, not a link to the organizations homepage. Very difficult finding WP:SIGCOV but did not find anything conclusive. As a result, the burden must rest with the writers of the original article and people with access to Bulgarian language sources, but I think due diligence (at least in English) has been attempted in conducting WP:BEFORE. Mkdw 03:14, 3 May 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Davidov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable - references given don't even mention him so this could even be a PROD. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The ITF is a separate organization from the WTF (which is the TKD organization recognized by the IOC). In fact, there are now at least 3 separate ITF organizations each claiming to be the "legitimate" ITF. You can decide for yourself the value of their titles, even if they're sourced (and this doesn't seem to be). Papaursa (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 April 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 no consensus. No consensus between Keep and Merge to 1958 Notting Hill race riots#Depiction in media, defaulting to keep with a strong recommendation to continue discussing the merge possibility on the talk page. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Jungle West 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books). Book isn't notable.  Tentinator  07:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment, talking about notability, I see that there have been at least 6 releases of this book over the years. Quuite possibly the bulk of them in the 1960's. At least two have bee in English. (Mr Real Natural (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm trying to figure out how influential Morrison actually was in the riots, meaning whether or not she merits her own entry separate from the 1958 Notting Hill race riots page. Depending on whether or not Morrison does pass notability guidelines, I might either recommend redirecting to Majbritt Morrison or to the riot entry. It looks like that's all she's really known for and while that might be WP:ONEEVENT, if she played a big enough role then she might just squeak by. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 1958_Notting_Hill_race_riots#Depiction_in_media. After looking at the riot page and searching for sources about Majbritt herself, I came to the conclusion that she's just not notable outside of the riot. The riot entry is slim enough that it is that any information about her (all mentions are almost exclusively about her possible role in the riots) would be best summarized in the riot article. I'm not saying that she's not notable, just that there's really no need for a separate article when everything that she's really known for can and pretty much already is summed up in the riot article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • KEEP I've just had a look and have located 5 releases by different publishing releases on line. There is one more that I know of as well. Two releases have been in English. Others are in German, Dutch and I think Scandinvian. Not sure which Scandinavian language it is though (Mr Real Natural (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
  • Merge (not merely redirect) to 1958_Notting_Hill_race_riots#Depiction_in_media, to which page Majbritt Morrison redirects. The criticisms of the book can adequately be covered in that section, which is currently a single sentence. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Having spent a few hours researching on this. It seems to me that this book is notable for it's recording of the events back then in that turbulent time in the late 1950's. Certainly as a valuable tool in the study of racial and social tensions. It's the account of one woman who was in the thick of it so to speak. It certainly has some historical value and there's is a recent rlease in the Netherlands. I believe in the last 3 to 4 years. A doccumentry on the issues in England in the late 1950's to the early 1960's referenced both the author and the book. I'll place a Strong Keep for this one. (Solution55 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC))
  • Keep, the book is important as an account of what was happening back then. Majbritt Morrison's account and also her input which comes from a key player in this, naamely herself is important as historical. I've located another release. The book was re released in the Netherlands in 2008. I believe that it may still be available. I saw 2 new copies. The author is notable too which when time permits I will display. Ray Morrison the husband was known in the entertainment industry later years. That I will add to plus other media references. In originating the article and others, I guess before putting it up, it's an idea to have as many refs and add to the article before putting it up. Thanks. (George-Archer (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC))
  • Merge' to 1958_Notting_Hill_race_riots#Depiction_in_media, to which page Majbritt Morrison redirects, as recommended by User:Peterkingiron. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 5 May 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Tyla Wynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails pornbio and general notability guidelines. Her award wins are scene related and she has only one non-scene related performer nomination. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 April 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. Michig (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Point loma wastewater treatment plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing to show that this plant is notable in any way Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:27, 27 April 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G8 redirect to a deleted page. Author moved it to another title and requested deletion of that. JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

How do travel sites recommend hotels?: Multi-dimensional Recommender Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Martorr (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. czar · · 05:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Martorr, you'll want to move this article out of article space and into user space ASAP, as article space is only for articles, which this isn't. (WP:MOVE the article to a Help:Userspace draft.) I can help if you wish. Is this some sort of project? czar · · 05:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Martorr's userspace per his comment above. It isn't an article about a coherent, encyclopedic topic, but he's working on some kind of draft. czar · · 05:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Speedy delete G8. OP moved the page somewhere else and then deleted it, so there's nothing left to discuss. czar · · 07:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Userfy to Martorr as requested. Martorr should be cautioned not to move it back to articlespace directly; it should be taken to Articles for Creation, or at least looked at by an experienced editor, because the topic appears completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Userfy This looks like a good start to a student essay on multicriteria recommender systems. It isn't bad as an essay, but is written in an unencyclopedic style, full of synthesis and what looks like a non-neutral POV. As the creator wishes to keep the article in some form, I agree that userfication is the best option here. It will give the student time to learn how to write a proper Knowledge (XXG) article without threat of deletion and satisfy WP:PRESERVE. I'll note that it is probably possible to write a good article on multicriteria recommender systems as it is likely a notable topic. But this article isn't it. --Mark viking (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an essay and outside the scope of Knowledge (XXG). If the editor who created this page is interested in creating an encyclopedia article and feels this would be helpful, we can keep it in userspace. OSborn contribs. 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Czar's amended note. Speedy userfy, perhaps with a better title. This shouldn't be in main space but if someone is going to work on turning it into an article then by all means, let's give them the chance to do so. Stalwart111 05:58, 28 April 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 speedy keep per Criterion 1 - no argument advanced for deletion. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

History of Christian thought on abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article duplicates material from Christianity and abortion and should be merged. Federales (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:00, 27 April 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Zohar (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

spam from Voidz, creator of adverts for Morocco Film Production (afd) and Abdelhay Elanbassi (afd) who are behind this film. it's a non notable film. the refbombing on who the producer is is telling to the intent of this article (look at ref 6, no mention of the producer). article is trying to hide behind a mass of sources, hoping the number and language would disuade examination. a look at translations of some of the sources shows deception. 6 sources are used to claim the film got an award. looking at some shows it was simply in the running. Once again Voidz is misrepresenting sources, claiming they say what they don't. Voidz has shown a repeated pattern of promotion, falsification and deception. this article is a promotional piece based on lies and deception and needs to be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like for editors proficient in French and Arabic languages to search for the film title and for either the director's name or producer's name. I found this, which appears to be an interview with the director that mentions Zohar a few times. We're not going to find English-language publications about this film, I think, so we should make an effort to find coverage in other languages. Film reviews would be especially helpful. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I cannot find any sources for this film. It apparently has been entered in a number of festivals but has received little or no critical notice. Maybe it's too soon or maybe it's a dud, but let's drop it for now and let it come back if and when it's notability can be established. Jojalozzo 01:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
(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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, this interview with the film-maker (in French, Moroccan national daily) provides some coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    Changed to weak keep as it seems that the film is a graduation project of the film director. Still, seems to be a big deal in Morocco.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    A filmmaker talking about her film is not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    WP:GNG defines not "independent of the subject" the following: "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent". An interview published by a reliable source such as this is considered independent (per WP:RS#Overview) and is a point in favor of the film's notability. However, we cannot seem to find more like this; the threshold of needing multiple sources (from WP:GNG) applies here. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Context matters". Who checked the facts? Did they check what she said? Did they simply publish it as her views? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    If that magazine has a reputable publishing history, then we would trust what has been published. In any case, it is important to assess the notability of this film on its own. We know it exists, and ignoring the behavior of the editor who has been blocked, we assess the topic independently to determine if it crosses the threshold of notability. As you can see, I've only commented so far because I haven't seen enough total evidence to establish notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    Once again I draw your attention to what you linked above. Context matters. Sources don't get a blanket pass. "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." This is just the film maker talking about her film. I'd be amenable to an argument that because the source chose to publish an interview with her that that suggests notability for her, but that is not inherited to her films. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I saw what you cited. I was looking at this in particular: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This is a circulated national daily as opposed to a blog, so I think that passage applies here and validates the interview unless the daily is not considered reliable as a whole. I've seen interviews with filmmakers on blogs and similar websites, and I think this source publishing an interview has more credibility. However, to get back to the larger matter, I've Googled a few different ways to find additional coverage but cannot find anything, so I'll go ahead and endorse deletion. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete 18-minute short student project film. No notable people involved. May or may not have been shown at a festival. No indication of notability by any reasonable standard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete this student project. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 02:43, May 5, 2013‎
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Karan Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only useable reference is from Times of India. The remainder are from Knowledge (XXG) or a broken link. Cannot locate any sources to support content. Does not meet basic WP:GNG. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok let me recheck all the references again. I will solve the issue in a while Thanks for notifying. I am sorry for this inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candicell (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I have checked the links. All links are working. If you read the linked articles you will find reference of Karan Rao. But i will add more citations to make it more acceptable. Thank you for notifying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candicell (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Now i have added 5-6 new references. And now you can clearly find out that he is a known model of India and turned to executive producer of film Station. Let me know if still they are not enough and i have to add more. Thanks (Candicell (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) And also i have checked all the links all are working. Please give them some time to open. (Candicell (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

  • Comment About Sources - Adding more sources is not what is needed. It is about quality, not quantity. Sources need to be WP:RS which I am still not seeing. This article is similar to the others you recently created and ultimately are amounting to spam. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems like just another one of the many worthless biographies created by Candicell/DrAdil (same user) which have also already been deleted or are currently nominated for deletion. The article on this subject, like all of the others, does not meet WP:Notability (people) nor do the given sources even discuss the subject in many cases. I checked what I could find about this Karan Rao person and it's the same as all the other articles, as are the user's constant attempts to "rush the ballot" so to speak with constant comments headed with asterisks as though the discussion is somehow resolved by repeating the same thing over and over. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment.All sources are added because they are relevant to the subject. If one source is added to another article that is relevant to that article too. I have the right to response to such comments and i believe that this is not wrong if i reply to the comments of other editor and try to explain. Now i hope wiki admins will also take notice of clearly biased comments due to some personal disliking for the page creater, while making a decision. . Dr Adil (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - As stated previously, it is not about "quantity", but rather "quality." I can provide you with a bunch of sources from database listings, press releases, social media, etc.' however, NONE of them would be reliable according to Knowledge (XXG). You need to focus on WP:RS as opposed to your own opinion about what is reliable. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added more references DAR (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • COMMENT about Sources - I am sorry, but I feel like I am hitting my head against a wall. This will be the last time I comment here as I feel like I am wasting my time. Again.......it is not about "more." Knowledge (XXG) needs "quality" sources, not a "quantity" of sources. As with the other articles, you are adding many sources believe that by piling them on they will somehow make the article notable. This is far from the case. There are many great articles on Knowledge (XXG) with fewer sources than you have as the sources used in those articles are WP:RS and are more than just passing mentions or directories. I will be glad to change my nomination if you are able to supply more reliable sources, not just "more" sources. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:09, 2 May 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. Notability is the key to inclusion, not anything else like how well-defined it is. If different sources conflict, then it is our duty to present all major viewpoints. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Niagara Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, let me make clear that the Niagara Frontier is a notable topic. The problem is that at this time an article is not sustainable or maintainable.

The statements in this article are wholly unsupported and completely uncited. The only source listed in the article is now a dead link.

I have searched for additional sources, and the vast majority merely mention the region in passing. Even those sources that are about the Niagara Frontier itself normally fail to define the area in a way that is useful to us. And even if there are sources that define the area adequately, it's likely that such sources would each define the region differently. That makes it veritably impossible to write an article about it.

The article appears to be widely linked, but in fact that's just an artifact of its presence in Template:New York. List of regions of the United States#New York does not mention it, probably because it's so poorly defined. Some sources indicate the frontier extends as far as Toledo, Ohio!

'But!' you say. 'This is a likely search term!' Indeed it is. But where would we redirect it to? We have no sources that clearly define the area. Even Western New York may not encompass the Niagara Frontier in its entirety, depending on how each region is defined. Without a useful or obvious redirect target, it's better to just delete the article and let the encyclopedia's search function take over.

I don't enjoy recommending this course of action, but I think it's the only one available given the dearth of clear definition and reliable sources for that definition.

-- Powers 12:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. A few months ago, a similar concern about the uncertain boundaries of a region was raised in Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/South Carolina Lowcountry; the consensus there was that such definitional uncertainties are inevitable, but this is not a reason to delete an article about a well-recognized region. The same is true here. As already mentioned in the article, this region is recognized by the National Weather Service . For a number of years, one of New York State's regional planning boards was the Niagara Frontier Planning Board, initially established in 1925 for Erie and Niagara Counties.. GBooks shows many hundreds of books with "Niagara Frontier" in the title. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • None of the evidence you've presented contradicts anything I said. We've got a crapton of references without any clear and consensus definition. Powers 17:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's normal for regions like this to not have precise definitions. If the lack of a standard definition is a problem, it is a problem for pages like Appalachia, Pacific Northwest, and even Midwestern United States (which despite a Census Bureau definition is widely used in ways that differ from that definition, as the page points out). I don't see that as a problem though. Precise definitions are the exception rather than the rule in regional geography. The page can describe differing definitions. Also, I can't believe there's a lack of sources that don't just mention the region in passing. As Arxiloxos pointed out there are hundreds of sources on Google Books alone, many of which are not previewable (eg, ). I can't believe these have all been checked and found wanting. Pfly (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That's an impossibly high bar to have passed. I haven't found any sources that can reasonably claim to be about the region qua region; if you have, please share them. Powers 02:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • And furthermore, without a clear definition, What is this article about? How can we define the scope of this article? Powers 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 27 April 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Katy Behean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no sign of significance of the topic. The only reason why this article has been made, it seems, is to let people know that the actress played the role of Mary Sinclair in Tai-Pan (film), which is not at all needed as this information has already been given in the latter article. smtchahal 10:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 27 April 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Barker (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The appropriate guidelines are WP:ENTERTAINER for Barker's work as an actor, and WP:MUSICBIO for his work as a musician. I see no evidence that Barker has had significant roles in notable films. His notability as a musician appears to be even more problematic. I added a {{Notability}} tag to the article on March 6, 2013 HairyWombat 15:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - has reasonable coverage within NZ's main national media, particularly through 2008/2009 period, but still regularly mentioned. The article is in severe need of reliable sources and a tidy up, but that is a matter of time. NealeFamily (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some more discussion on this one before it is closed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang 10:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC) -
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 27 April 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty Furuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is being nominated for AFD due to not meeting general notability guidelines. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\ ship's log 02:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:17, 27 April 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 delete. The consensus is that the subject fails both general and project notabilty guidelines. Xymmax So let it be done 00:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Brian Marks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undeleted as a contested prod but appears not to meet the requirements of NHOCKEY. Specifically, not competing at the highest level and the coverage provided is all about oneevent and local. Spartaz 02:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:16, 27 April 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 speedy delete. Speedy delete as made-up stuff whose only function appears to be wasting our time. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Spoofing your technical friend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by creator. PROD reason: Article is nothing more than a dictionary entry for an unremarkable neologism. Ignatzmice•talk 02:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Max Borin (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. czar · · 03:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:18, 27 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rootflage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any reliable sources about this seemingly non-notable product/neologism (stated to be slang, but can only find references to the product with this name online). – 296.x (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 April 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Techlink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had difficulty finding valid info amongst the plethora of google hits but everything points to it being a non-notable website. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:18, 27 April 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 merge to Primitivity. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Plays Megadeth for Cello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist, also, the article was started by an account whose username is strikingly similar to the name of one of the members of Primitivity (the group who recorded this work). Also unreferenced. L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge to Primitivity. Little more here than a tracklisting, ad given the band's limited number of releases can easily be covered in the band article. I'm not convinced that the band is really of encyclopedic interest, but while that article exists, merge there. --Michig (talk) 08:44, 27 April 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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Team Spirit (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable film, couldn't find reliable coverage for this movie or its sequel besides an IMDB page. BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
(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)
  • Comment. I will refrain from opinion until we hear from Wikipedians able to search for reviews in French, Dutch, or Flemish, for this 13-year-old non-English film. As the article tells us this is a Flemish remake of a Dutch film, it might be sensible to redirect to a "remake" section in the article about the Dutch film. Schmidt, 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
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, 27 April 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 delete. Michig (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RDOS (ekblad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. The operating system in the article does not have sufficient notability. There is no information/sources available regarding, if any, users; neither commercial nor hobbyist. The article seems to be about a personal hobbyist project, which clearly can't have enough notability to call for a Knowledge (XXG) article. XeonMoon (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
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, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A web seach on RDOS (ekblad) returns only web pages where the developer has been involved in some way, either as administrator of the page or as a member of discussions about tools and development of the OS. No web pages or discussions were the developer has not been somehow involved can be found. This really questions the notability. XeonMoon (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Blacklisted links in references - References 1 and 3 in the article page have malformed URL:s and leads to a by Knowledge (XXG) blacklisted web site ( Blacklist Talk about the blacklisting). The reason for the malformed URL:s is probably to fool the blacklisting. XeonMoon (talk) 22:33, 30 April 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. Reclosing. Since it's a relisted nom, it can be closed as soon as consensus is clear. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Clean, Clean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the article Elstree (song), this song is not notable enough to have it's own article. Yes, maybe the song charted in the UK, but I was unable to find any in-depth information on this song. EditorE (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What search did you perform? Given that charting means it passes WP:NSONG, "I couldn't find anything" isn't necessarily an adequate deletion rationale, and "that's okay, we'll keep looking" may then be an adequate response. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, according to Google News, the sources that mention the single are associated with the album. The Age of Plastic, and the 2010 re-performance of the Buggles, and there's really not a lot of significant coverage of this song. This search appeareantely found no reliable news, newspaper or magazine articles on this song. Also, because the song charted is not one of the requirements on WP:NSONG to have a song have it's own article, and this article follows none of those guidelines (EditorE (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)).
NOTE: Editor has subsequently expressed that he withdraws his nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
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, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a single by a notable group from a notable album; alternatively, merge and redirect to The Age of Plastic. (Off-topic: I like this song, but wish I had a better idea what it means.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete just because it barely passes WP:NSONG doesn't mean it is required to have a stand-alone article. WP:NSONG says that it may be notable, not that is always notable. Ramaksoud2000 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the album. As a top 40 hit it has real world notability (which should be what we look for our guidelines to point towards) but the article as it stands lacks enough information to make it worth keeping (a different consideration to notability). If more is found (reviews of the single will almost certainly exist in print sources) at a later date that would allow the article to be expanded, great, but we shouldn't keep one line articles if there's a suitable place to merge/redirect to. --Michig (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep as Ajsmith141's improvements now mean we have an article worth keeping. Good work. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have expanded the article and provided references, however I still expect there would be more critical reception etc from sources outside of the internet and UK press of the time. Ajsmith141 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 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. Withdrawn by nominator, but there were delete/merge !votes, so technically closure on that basis is improper. However, there has been expansion of the artice that appears to address all objections raised previously. Xymmax So let it be done 00:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was Keep. Thanks Ajsmith141. Withdrawn by nominator. EditorE (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Elstree (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the article Clean, Clean, this song is not notable enough to have it's own article. Yes, maybe the song was covered by Gigi D-Agostino and there was a music video, but I was unable to find any in-depth information on this song. EditorE (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 27 April 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 incubate. More than one editor, so incubating instead of userfying. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Addiction (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM - an unreleased movie, the press coverage provided is merely an announcement that it will be shown for one weekend in one theater, which counts as trivial. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
(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)
(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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
the Minkoze piece is a PR piece (check the author name), and this does not count toward notability. -Nat Gertler (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I am in no way arguing that this is notable enough, and simply shared what little I could find.. including that press release (which offered clues to what could be more appropriate searches). If there was more, we'd be at a different place. But yes, this does not belong in article space at this time...and is at best simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, 22:58, 27 April 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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW. January (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. Unknown politician. Not well known and insignificant figure. Aoriyoshi5 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 April 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑