Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 26

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 28 (Sat) September 27 (Fri) September 26 (Thu) More...

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

< 25 August	27 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete - clearly non-notable person. Krakatoa Katie 01:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Francis mariela

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

Non-notable person. CSD tags were removed by a user other than the article creator, so we have to bring things here. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 23:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 23:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete: No indication of notability. Kolbasz (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

delete - no claim of notability made, nor apparent. Maralia (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 03:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete Should've been speedied; no evidence of notability (or claims) whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie 01:29, 1 September 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 result was delete. Secret 02:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Elie Moises

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined on the grounds that the subject now plays in the Maltese Premier League. However, since this league is confirmed as not fully pro (see WP:FPL) the article still fails WP:NSPORT. More importantly, he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 23:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 23:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 23:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete - per above as a standard non-notable footballer per established WP:FOOTY consensus. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 03:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Zachary (Z-FLO) Esters

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

I'm not sure what to make of this, but considering the scarcity of secondary sources on the Web, doubtful notability can be established. Laval (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 August 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, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

•Every piece of information in this article is referenced. Can you be more specific? Is there a certain piece of information that you cannot validate that causes your doubt of notability? Also, on another note, this guy is all over Google. You may have to switch your Google query/search options to "United States of America" if you live in another country to see it. Anonywriter13 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete Per nom - Nothing notable, everything is a primary source directly attributable to subject/his PR team, or from non-reliable websites such as IMDB. Most hits are just because he was listed in the credits of a production. Caffeyw (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but did not find anything that would help to establish WP:GNG notability. Paul Erik 03:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 03:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

SmartFile (company)

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

Appears to be a non-notable Web site. Has a 6-digit Alexa rank and the only Google News results are press releases. —rybec 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 12 August 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, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Shahwani

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

Suggested move to WP:AI - article quality is so substandard. kashmiri 17:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 12 August 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) 00:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - even nom does not want article deleted. The topic is notable, it's just a shoddy article. This isn't what AFD is for. (Knowledge:Articles for Improvement might be more what you're looking for) ∴ ZX95 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of stars in Hydra. Jujutacular (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Gliese 349

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge a table entry into List of stars in Hydra. The star does not satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 04:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge This is almost bright enough to see with naked eye. It could go into a list of near solar K type stars also. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NASTRO. Not bright enough nor near enough to be independently notable in the absence of publications specifically about it. "Almost" means that it is definitely below the NASTRO threshold. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge to appropriate list article, but most likely this should be deleted. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, nor WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Merge into a table entry on List of stars in Hydra per the WP:NASTHELP section of WP:NASTRO. Technical 13 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of stars in Orion. Material may be merged from the page history. Jujutacular (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Gliese 204

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

Doens't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It's used as an MK spectral standard star, so it gets a few mentions in astronomy journal articles. Not much beyond that though. Praemonitus (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Smerge to List of stars in Orion. I wouldn't have a problem with deleting this, except, it's less than fifty light years away:- right in our backyard. We can probably do better than a redlink, even though it's correct that it doesn't meet WP:NASTRO.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete or Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge to a combined article, possibly on near solar class K stars. Don't leave a red link. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to List of stars in Orion per WP:NASTRO. We already have a list of nearby stars and this one isn't near enough to be interesting in that respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge to an appropriate list article, or delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, so it wouldn't pass WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Merge into a table entry on List of stars in Orion per the WP:NASTHELP section of WP:NASTRO. Technical 13 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Real Asset Co

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

Although the article have been here for a few years, it's mostly based on trivial sources, a few articles where most of the content seem to be direct quotes from company representatives and at least one press release. Bjelleklang - talk 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 14:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete, of the dozen sources not one discusses the company. Google News gives no relevant hits. Huon (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete Arguably Delingpole's articles in the Telegraph & Spectator at least feature the company (he identifies as a user of their service), and these are the reason I didn't CSD A7 in Dec 2011, but there is not enough specific to this firm to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Gavin Boyter

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Notwithstanding Boyter's achievements, a search for references seems to indicate the subject currently fails WP:ANYBIO. There are also WP:PROMO concerns, not to mention exploitation of Knowledge to promote the Yuri Gadyukin hoax. Perhaps an article will be merited in the future, but for now it seems to be WP:TOOSOON. A redirect to the film Sparks and Embers may be valid (if notable), except that article doesn't exist. I wish you all the best in your endeavours, Mr Boyter. -- Trevj (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete Nothing notable shows up in his list of IMDB credits; the only external link on the page besides imdb is broken. OhNoitsJamie 01:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If you mean UKFC First Past the Post, that's wouldn't really contribute to the subject's notability anyway: it's merely 2 sentences about the world premiere of Beyond. -- Trevj (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Econsult Solutions

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

Non-notable company. The author said so himself: The projects are widely covered in the media and in testimony but nothing exist about the company itself. Notability is not inherited. There are also WP:SPAM issues, claims such as "ranking as the most utilized and quoted expertise for both the Public and Private Sector conducting economic impact studies in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area" are not supported by the given source. Huon (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree per nom, Delete. I removed the G11 tag only because I didn't think it was over the top promotional. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable: Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. We might want to know about the company, but Knowledge needs sources providing substantial coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete The article from Philadelphia Business Journal in 2010 relates to an initiative by the parent company rather than the subject of this article which commenced in 2013. There is more to be found on the parent company, albeit mainly Philadelphia local media, but I am finding nothing on Econsult Solutions itself. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Discuss The most media quoted company in Philadelphia on economic impacts by the media of parent company for over thirty years on various issues and reports produced by Parent Company. How different is the Parent Company from this subdivision created is an issue for review, as there may be no difference in a historical timeline of legacy. The recent public edit using the website as a prime reference seems not to be an improvement, but a continued discussion on firms like similar Wiki pages for Nera Consulting NYC and Bain & Company Boston can be used in the discussions. Thinking out loud. Pretzelfactory (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

2008 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Soccer Tournament

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

Non-notable sports year. No independent refs. See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/2009 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. PROD removed by creator under Knowledge:Ignore all rules. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000 22:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

While this, as well as the other articles in the series about the Missouri Valley soccer tournaments from 1991 through 2013, may well be non-notable, one of the principles of the Knowledge is to ignore the rules if it improves the Knowledge. It is the opinion of some, myself included, that the presence of the complete series of articles about the MVC men's soccer tournament from 1991 through 2013 improves the WSikipedia, regardless of notability, giving them just cause to remain. This is magnified by the fact that, if you click on the "Find sources" above, you will be directed to sites that reference these Knowledge articles in particular. GWFrog (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - As noted above does not meet guidelines for being included. Just because the article is referenced is no reason to keep it. In fact it's the very reason it should be removed IMO. People get the impression if it's on Wiki it must be important. Caffeyw (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability, non-notable tournament, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
DELETE - I have merged the complete series of annual tournaments into the main MVC tournament article & tagged all of the others for speedy deletion... GWFrog (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike Sabath

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

Non-notable musician. Has had some local coverage for his fundraising activities, but no actual note as a musician. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 22:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that Mike Sabath is a non notable musician due to his previously released tracks and rumors of a soon to be released album. Not only that, this article should not be deleted because it also shows the philanthropy that this young talent has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicreviewer98 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — Musicreviewer98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Very weak keep unless some heavyweight WP:RS is found. This version had probably just sufficient to scrape past BLPPROD, but it is borderline. He may be more notable as a fundraiser than a musician. More references will move my opinion increasingly towards a full keep. Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Changed my mind. Delete as SPAM. This article seems to be being used to promote this alleged musician and fundraiser, not to record anything notable. Fiddle Faddle 08:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I added another reference to a radio station that Mike Sabath was on. Although you may believe that he is not notable enough, I do as do thousands of his fans that attended Suny Purchase when Sabath performed there about one year ago. Plus, he is only getting bigger from here. So, if you would just allow this article to remain on Knowledge, it would show much growth and appreciation to me and the rest of Mike Sabath's fans.--Musicreviewer98 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Musicreviewer

Delete. A trivial amount of very local coverage falls well short of notable. Award is not major. Philanthropy is not inherently notable. Previously releasing tracks is not enough for WP:BAND. Rumours are not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

On Mike Sabath's Facebook page it notes that his new album "Two of Us" is releasing tomorrow, the 27th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicreviewer98 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Keep. After some research on this artist, it appears that he does seem to be quite a notable musician. He has won many awards, including the philanthropy award stated by Musicreviewer98, he already has a big following and he also has made an abundance of fantastic music, including the new album "Two of Us" that I confirmed is releasing tomorrow. At first glance he did seem non notable but after a little research, he definitely deserves a Knowledge page. APPROVED--Mike Sabath (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)— Maroonstudios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC - coverage in reliable sources amounts to no more than trivial mentions like this, no verifiable evidence of being signed to a major label, no evidence of chart placing. As for the claims that his album is being released today - to cut a long story short, unless you can pick up that album today in any Walmart store of your choice, it's probably not notable enough. Justin Bieber didn't get his notability from just using Facebook and Twitter. Ritchie333 11:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is a testimonial written by one of Mike's producers: Mike Sabath is pure talent. His new album "Two of Us" is the record of a young superstar in the making. Having the pleasure of working with Mike on other material, I can tell you that musicality is a rush to witness and thrill to collaborate with. Each of his wholly original songs on the new album shows a different facet of his style with a nuance beyond his years. I can't say enough good things about him" Why isn't that worthy enough to allow this musician to have a Knowledge page. It's not whether he sells his music in Walmart or on iTunes. It's that he is a great musician, one who does good for others. That is something that he should be noted for, deserving a Wiki page.--Musicreviewer98 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Show us that in a reliable source, and add it to the article as a citation and it might help. In its current form it is useless and meaningless. Knowledge is an encyclopaedia, not a place to advertise artistes. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians are a pretty diverse bunch, and what one person likes, another person might detest. I decided to wake up this morning to the dulcet tones of Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict. I'm odd like that. Doesn't mean that Ummagumma is the most notable album in the history of recorded music. Ritchie333 08:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment No one is arguing whether or not Sabath is a good musician, just whether he is a notable musician. Many very talented musicians toil away in obscurity all of their careers, while many musicians of questionable talent (or no talent at all) (names withheld to protect the untalented) reach superstar status. All of Musicreviewer's arguments cannot demonstrate that Sabath is notable. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that he is quite notable for his awards, his high sales, his appearance in Train's VH1 "Christmas in Seabright" special, and many other great achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicreviewer98 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back any of that up? If your uncited claim of "high sales" was true, his album would appear on List of best-selling albums, but it doesn't. Ritchie333 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Edalo Cheragani Guruthulu

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

Contested PROD. reason was "This movie asserts no notability, nor has it any verification. Youtube is not a reliable source" Fiddle Faddle 21:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete for failing WP:NF. While the youtube links show the film exists, it has not received any coverage in reliable sources. I prettied up the article (good practice), but was unable to find reliable sources supporting the film. No sources - no notability. Schmidt, 02:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Delete. Needs sources to demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Marthandanthurai

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

Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "It's a beach. Nothing notable, though. It's probably a very nice beach." Fiddle Faddle 09:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - The infobox in the article claims it is a town, but I can't find any sources that confirm this. In fact, I can't find many sources for this beach at all. This definitely fails the notability guideline for places. T C N7JM 23:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Switching to keep since the place has been verified. I saw the website for the place, but I didn't see that it was in the operational area. T C N7JM 21:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Weak Keep. The settlement referred to in the article would appear to be here: 8°17′17″N 77°06′18″E / 8.288°N 77.105°E / 8.288; 77.105. Note that the Google Map shows bus stops labeled "Marthandanthurai Junction" and "Marthandanthurai School" there. I don't read the article as saying that Marthandanthurai is a beach, just that it has a beach. Admittedly, I can't find the settlement itself labeled on any online map, but any place that has its own Web site and is listed as being in the operational area (last line under "Villages") of the local archdiocese's social-security program is probably real enough to scrape by per WP:NPLACE. Deor (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've cleaned up the article somewhat. Deor (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep It's a verifiable village with a population of about 3000. Added refs. —SpacemanSpiff 20:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm 21:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Why the relisting? The deletion rationale has been refuted and nobody is supporting deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Asfour crystal

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

The notability of this subject is established from a primary source, the company's website, which as of this AfD cannot be loaded, and there is no archive at the Wayback Machine. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I found some German language articles which I read via machine translation that cover them. As far as I can tell, those items are about Asfour cutting into Swarovski's business. See , , . -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Whpq. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm 21:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Whpq's new found sources. Technical 13 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Madison Minotaurs Rugby Club

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

I found no notability for this rugby team. Fails WP:N. The team has also never played in a professional league. SL93 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

weak keep Division 3 team, has received some coverage. (radio interview) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Gaijin42. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete No indication of meeting WP:RU/N. Purely local coverage in the links provided above and google not finding anything more significant. Amateur club in a low division of a state league. noq (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom, noq. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Weak delete - It isn't only part of a low division of a state league. It's a member of what seems to be the largest gay rugby association in the world. In spite of this, the coverage seems so local, and there's so little of it, that I had to come to the conclusion that the club was not notable enough for its own article. T C N7JM 12:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Merge into Wisconsin Rugby Football Union after removing the encyclopaedic content. Not notable enough for stand alone article as per TCN7JM. – Shudde 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, noq, and TCN7JM. Technical 13 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Blue Bus of Staffordshire

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

non notable company. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→ T 21:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→ T 21:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→ T 21:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→ T 21:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment -- I am very dubious of the value of articles about local bus comnpanies, particularly when there is as little content as in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm 20:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. aycliffe 07:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. There's no indication that significant coverage exists to provide more than a stub or other directory-type information. Peter James (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Glossary of Please Save My Earth

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

This is a list of terms relying entirely on primary sources without anything to establish real world notability. TTN (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The series or franchise is what is notable, and so the question is whether these elements of it are significant enough that summarization is helpful to the reader to understand the topic. It is not required that each element of such a list itself be notable (see WP:CSC#2). We also have to keep in mind that Please Save My Earth comprises 21 manga volumes and six part anime series, so it isn't surprising that it would take more than just the current plot section in the parent article to describe those works. At any rate, none of this is included in that article at present and so at least some of this would be merged there in some form. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Such articles are not a norm for fictional topics (series with 50+ volumes and hundreds of episodes pretty much only have lists of characters), and Wikia exists for such in-depth descriptions. The volume list describes the plot of the series well enough, so any further expansion seems unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the volume list is sufficient, but I still think that's something to be determined through ordinary discussion by editors familiar with the subject rather than under the gun at AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can find someone who actually wants to sort through it in a timely manner, I'll withdraw it, but I think that is unlikely given that there have been like ten edits throughout all of the related articles in the last eight months. Overall, it is an unnecessary list of overly in-depth details not suitable for this site, nor would such a list be kept in the article itself under normal conditions. TTN (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"...in a timely manner..." Exactly my point when I used the phrase "under the gun at AFD": artificial time constraints that have nothing to do with the ultimate potential of the content. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The number of edits over a period of time are not sufficient reason to delete in place of actual clean up. The page is far from ideal, but this can be shortened and fixed. I've seen academic works that hate to go into terminology, but must simply because comprehension rests upon understanding major terms and concepts in fictional works. The obvious answer is to fix it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The only way to fix a non-notable article is to find sources or to delete it (or merging it, which can be also be done at AfD). I encourage you to reconsider your position here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - We've already have some (loose) consensus that terminology sections or articles are unencyclopedic and don't have a place on Knowledge. Such sections/articles are fancruft magnets and it is essentially impossible for such articles to be notable. These terms aren't covered in reliable sources anyway. It's just a collection of WP:OR that will only interest a specific audience. Narutolovehinata5 10:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
delete this articles fails WP:GNG in that there is no significant coverage from reliable independent sources that would establish the topic's real-world notability, and would help the article to be more than a regurgitation of plot that violates WP:NOTPLOT. Since this article also consists in a user's personal summary/interpretation of plot elements from primary sources, there's a huge risk of it being WP:OR. As per Narutolovehinata5, there is no chance for "Glossary" articles to ever meet our guidelines.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:GLOSSARIES, glossaries are a type of list, while this one is not really complex enough to need its own article; it could be pushed into the plot details. I'll move to merge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:GLOSSARIES is not a guideline.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per WP:POTENTIAL, unlike other glossaries I do see sources here. Have more sources been looked for here and on Japanese sites? (WP:BEFORE) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are primary sources, so they have little importance in satisfying notability requirements. If such a list was a section in the main article, it would be removed during basic editing, so there is no real potential for improvement. TTN (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- the article has potential as it does have references at least and it seems to serve as a way of understanding the anime/manga involved. Also you never answered my question about WP:BEFORE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  - This type of article has always been frowned upon as being overly detailed and unnecessary, and as I said, when the main article has a similar glossary, it is always removed when attempting to improve the article per regular standards. I think I've started at least ten other AfDs on similar lists with all of them being deleted. There is nothing to search because there is no way to source this from a real world context. Anything that could be found would be placed in the main article, so that is irrelevant. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    - Things have changed since 2009 though and WP:BEFORE remains a process for AfD, I have seen articles up for deletion as well that were kept because of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
      - You won't find one GA or FA fiction related article with any sort of massive list like this other than character lists (which often can be given independent, real world context anyway), so I really don't think anything has changed. The only ones remaining will be those needing improvement. How exactly would you expect any sort of search to mean anything? Searching for the series will give sources on the series, searching "Glossary of Please Save My Earth" will obviously turn up nothing, and searching for the other terms also turns up nothing. There is nothing relevant in building this into a viable topic. As I compared it before, this article is small enough to have been an unwieldy set of sections in the main article. They would not be improved in that case, but generally unilaterally cut for being too in-depth. TTN (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
        I've searched for "Please Save My Earth" + the various terms on Google and Google Books, and no significant result. If these terms were so instrumental to audience comprehension that they deserve their own article, there would be coverage in RS, but that's just not the case. WP:POTENTIAL is neither policy nor guideline so can't be used as a rationale at AfD. Applicable policies and guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. If we have only primary sources then there cannot be a stand-alone for that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't cover the inclusion requirements for lists which specifically states at LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Given CSC and and LIST which allows for glossaries, this page aides in comprehension of the subject and does not need to have sources about "the glossary" as a topic because a glossary is not a topic; it is list of terminology. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general" ? The topic is glossary/terms/concepts of PSME, so where is the secondary coverage about these terms ? What about WP:NOTPLOT ? What can't it be in a main article ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. With many of these WP:NOTNEWS deletions, if there is continued coverage of the crime and leads to any lasting effect on legislation and the likes, it can always be recreated without any issue. Until then CRYSTAL applies as well (though there is clear consensus this fails NOTNEWS) Secret 03:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Death of Delbert Belton

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

Contested PROD. Doubtless an awful and inhumane event, but unfortunately not especially unusual, and no indication of WP:LASTING significance. BDD (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Since they already caught one of the guys, I don't see this becoming a particularly unusual case. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 20:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, should this survive, it should probably be moved to Murder of Delbert Belton. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not per WP:BLPCRIME. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about that... thought they already arrested the two suspects. Should pay more attention. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 20:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

They have arrested suspects, but no one's been convicted; that's the more important measure. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete News story not encyclopaedic content, fails WP:NOTNEWS with no demonstrated lasting effect or significance. LGA _talk 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep Meets GNG, lasting effect cannot be effectively judged so close to the event. Given the facts of the case, it may become another Murder of Jesse Dirkhising, most notable for the political use of the event rather than the crime itself. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete ; that it may become of significance beyond news at some date is not a reason to treat it as being beyond merely news now, just as any person being born may become of sufficient notability but is not proper for an article until they do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Weak Keep. It has received a lot of media attention and many people all over the country are suggesting it to be a racially motivated crime, which may rise the magnitude for the seriousness of this crime. However, hate crime charges have not yet been filed. Due to the victim's age, it also makes it an even more disturbing and somewhat of an unusual crime. For now, I may be learning towards a keep. Cyanidethistles (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom and NOTNEWS -Drdisque (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Fails Knowledge:Notability (events). No evidence that there will be any lasting effects or coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete delete delete. Who is writing these crime reports? This is WP not a crime blotter. 70000 shot every year. We don't have the capability to document every one of these incidents. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Did you even read this article? This wasn't a shooting, it was a beating. Also, this beating received a lot of media attention, and while I am not sure that it should have its own article, it received a LOT of media attention, thus causing a person to make an article about this incident. 98.207.226.90 (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep: Due to the increased attention this murder has received in the print, television, and social media circles, it is more notable than other crimes, and will surely continue to receive heightened media attention during the trials of the two suspected assailants. -- Caponer (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - user Caponer says it all. WP:GNG as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, citing the GNG on what is still a fairly recent event isn't the best thing to do. The GNG talks about how something is presumably notable if it has received lots of coverage, guidelines of WP:EVENT, which this is, say otherwise. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:RECENT. Fails the 10 year test.--Auric talk 13:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Angel (Meg series)

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

This articles lacks any proper sources to establish notability, and it seems unlikely that there is any such potential for any. TTN (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror. All four books should be merged to a series article since none are sourced and likely difficult to do so. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete or Merge A merger seems like a move to consider. The subject doesn't seem to qualify for an article on its own. No independent sources found in a quick search.Jarkeld (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Green Cardamom, "All four books ... since none are sources and likely difficult to do so". Technical 13 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG as fancruft. No sourced encyclopedic content to merge. -- Trevj (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Peto Coast

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as he has not "won a well-known and significant industry award" or fufilled either of the remaining criteria. Moreover the article fails WP:GNG as a quick google search reveals no coverage of substance to satisfy that criteria Finnegas (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete, this one appears to be really a non notable performer. Fails any suitable notability guideline. Cavarrone 19:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not even asserted but an A7 speedy was contested in 2011. No reliable source coverage found to pass GNG. Fails PORNBIO without awards or nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. A 2012 Hustlaball nomination is slightly notable (there is an article on Hustlaball), but that single nom is all I could find. Erpert 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep I've added in 1 win and 4 nominations (he may have also won some of those he was nominated for- I can't find who actually won them). Some of the films he's been in have also been nominated and won awards. Seems to have quite a following and presence within the gay bareback/fetish sub-genres and seems to be a lot in the article that can be expanded on.--Rushton2010 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And just as a side note, google's not very good for "adult" things as they have been screening things out; even with safesearch off and quite explicit search perimeters, things are noticeably filtered when compared with other search engines.

- Both sets of awards involved -- "Hustlaball" and "International Escort" -- by previous consensus, fail the "well-known/significant" standard in PORNBIO. Indeed, the "International Escort" awards were, by consensus, deleted as non-notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  - Sorry I forgot how homophobic things are and how only straight porn awards are notable. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that came across more sarcastic than I intended, but it is a relevant concern. The straight porn awards are considered noteworthy and deserving of record for eternity, but the gay equivalents are not? What is that if not homophobia? By declaring the gay equivalents such, it makes it impossible for a gay porn actor to pass the criteria because only straight awards and actors are deemed deserving of note. It's clearly exclusionist and discriminatory and looks like a very serious case of homophobia --Rushton2010 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus. Finnegas (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Others would call that institutionally homophobic. Its already been plastered across the media how Knowledge is institutionally sexist, so why should we be surprised by homophobia? --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We've also not seen any proof to back up claims of a prior "consensus"; that consensus may not reflect current "consensus". And homophobia and discrimination are still homophobia and discrimination whether the majority agree with it or not: its clearly an issue that goes much further than this article.--Rushton2010 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with Rushton. He's well-known in the gay porn world. And it is unfortunate that what we normally declare as reliable sources fail, in this instance, to account for someone being "known" in the larger sense. I will try and find suitable sources, but I don't think we should be in any rush to delete the article. Definitely does not warrant a "speedy deletion" in my opinion anyway. Icarus of old (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems a sensible option. The first reviews were based on the article as it was, before award wins and nominations were added in (and seem to have based judgement solely on the fact no awards were mentioned), so they should be invited back to reassess when the article has been expanded. --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete as I think Gene93k's assessment is spot on. Technical 13 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gene93k's assessment says he had no awards or nominations which has now been proven incorrrect... so did you even bother to read the article? --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete, on balance. The criteria say that nominations should be for a "well-known and significant industry award". I get the impression Hustlaball isn't one of these. In fact, I'm not sure it is even worthy of its own article, in view of the paucity of the references.Deb (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Nomination (in essence) withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti 05:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nail Communications

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

Serious doubts about the notability of this business. Most of the sources are from their own social media sites or work they claim to have produced. The remaining appear to be small, frivolous mentions in relation to their clients, mainly the food bank. Dolescum (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that they've done some work that has gained national attention, including Nothing, Mike and Ike, and Vibram. I'd put the agency in the same category as Bailey Lauerman. Orangesm (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There are a couple of sources on the Bailey Lauerman article that just about scrape notability. Not so in the article you've written on Nail. The food bank itself as well as the other things you've mentioned seem notable in varying degrees from those references, but I feel you're trying to inherit notability from those. Additionally, such heavy referencing to their linkedin and facebook pages falls foul of our guidelines on self-published sources. If I take those out, there's not really anything left, is there? Dolescum (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a few more sources and will continue to look. It's always difficult to find precise dates anywhere other than "self-published" sources. I think if anything, the page needs a little editing, not a deletion. Orangesm (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You've added a blog post from Rhode Island small business journal and a couple of pieces from sites targetting the city of Providence. I'm still not convinced at all this is 'significant coverage' that is 'independent of the subject' as per WP:GNG, in addition to my concerns above. Dolescum (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The other issue becomes that most written documentation from notable sources like Ad Week etc is mostly inaccessible. I think we need a fresh pair of eyes to step in and evaluate/edit. Orangesm (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks, thought I'd step in and help out. I removed all the self-published sources and did a bit of cleanup on the page. Any additional thoughts, or can we close this discussion? Arthritix (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arthritix, thanks for digging out some extra sources. Your Google bubble seems to be treating you a lot more kindly on this matter than mine did! ;)

Your improvements have assuaged my doubts somewhat. If you're happy to close as keep, I can live with that. Thanks again, for getting involved. Dolescum (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for helping. Orangesm (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll let someone who hasn't been involved in the debate close. Arthritix (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sven Sester

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Knowledge. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Obvious keep, clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as the member of a national parliament; he's even described as a "high-ranking" member who was Chair of the Finance Committee. Please better familiarize yourself with relevant notability guidelines before nominating something for deletion on that basis; also read WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep he certainly passes WP:POLITICIAN per Postdlf's comment above if the article's contents are accurate, but this is currently a completely unsourced biography of a living person. My keep vote is predicated on some sourcing being found to back up any claims in the article (if none have been found by tonight EST I'll see if I can have a look myself for some). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Read my comment again and check the included link. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep I've also added a reference so it's undoubted that he's a member of a national legislature and finance committee chairman, which meets WP:POLITICIAN. There are numerous more Estonian language ones around, which I'm not linguistically competent enough to judge, such as this one covering the birth of one of his kids. I'd say there would be enough in several of those to meet WP:BIO. Valenciano (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Member of a national legislature. Enos733 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Should never have been nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was procedural close defaulting to keep. No prejudice against a new nomination by a non-sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

William Dudley Geer

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Knowledge. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I don't know how Geer ranks in notability but that list of papers needs to be cut at least in half. It looks like it was cut and pasted from a CV. Liz 20:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Withdrew due to sock nom. Here is William Dudley Geer obituary which verifies most of the article's highlights. The article was created by another Geer User:SamuelTGeer in 2004, who also uploaded old pictures of the Geer family, presently unused. I don't believe any of his many titles or positions pass WP:ACADEMIC, Dean not high enough. Nothing for WP:GNG in Google Books. Nothing in Google Scholar. I checked commercial databases for older offline material (JSTOR, Gale, ProQuest etc) and nothing there. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep -- We have a long list of publications. I am not familiar with US academic titles, but I thought Dean was a high status. I accept that there may be COI with the creator, but the question is notability, and I would have thought it was adequate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ACADEMIC it says Dean is not high enough position to be considered "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify". The publications are actually limited for an academic over a lifetime career, nearly non-existent on scholar.google.com in terms of other citations, his pubs seem to be largely forgotten by his peers. Don't get me wrong I don't care about COI morally, just mentioned it because he was added not by a neutral party who knows of him, but a family member, which is a sign to look into notability more closely. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Procedural Close with no prejudice: this is an apparent bad-faith nomination by a blocked sockpuppet account.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge to Upper Canada College. Already redirected by nom, 08:55, 3 September 2013 (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Sourced content merged. -- Trevj (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Upper Canada College houses

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

I can't find anywhere near sufficient sourcing to indicate that these organizations are notable, either individually or in aggregate. This page appears to largely consist of personal knowledge, as there are no corresponding references in the article or, that I can find, in existence at all. Seraphimblade 12:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep/merge The houses are detailed in works such as Upper Canada College, 1829-1979. There's an obvious alternative to deletion — merger into the parent article Upper Canada College. Warden (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge - obviously, to Upper Canada College. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete g11 -- Y not? 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Karli Beatz

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Only one source is notable, and it's a passing mention of a mixtape. Ish dar ian 11:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete Autobio - Fails GNG, and WP:MUSIC. -- Alexf 18:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wild Taiga Finland

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

Not notable and unreferenced. Promotional. Previously deleted for copyvio (1x) and spam (1x). Repeatedly recreated without encyclopedic content. GregJackP Boomer! 11:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Google News search turns up empty. MER-C 13:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete as there is no evidence of importance. Technical 13 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete - worthy but NN. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Chitra Thiyagarajan

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

It is the device that is notable. The inventor requires more than a notable device under patent to be notable here. Fails notability. Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep- Yes device is under patent process. She is notable with this invention. Before this, she had two more invention. (Gokulchandola (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Insufficient sources, also insufficient for "invention". Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC).
Delete. No evidence from subject related journals. asimkumar2222 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC).
Keep - Yes she is notable. (182.68.231.169 (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC))
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Mandalini (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete because even if the device she patented is barely notable enough to have an article, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and until there are some sources about her then I feel Mandalini is right with a WP:NotJustYet assessment. Technical 13 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, the one delete !voter agrees it is now worth keeping. Note: I was involved in the discussion below. Non admin closure. cyclopia 09:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC) -

MOVED ARTICLE TO Plant sources of anti-cancer agents Albiet (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Anticancer plants

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

Non-notable topic giving rise to original research. As has been pointed out in Talk, out of three sources listed in support of the definition, only one has the actual words "Anti-cancer plants" - and even that source only uses those words once, in the title. Where plants (more usually their extracts) are researched in the field of cancer they are mentioned in List of plants used in herbalism. Alexbrn 07:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator – article title, scope and content has changed since proposa was made. Alexbrn 21:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in sources such as Plants that Fight Cancer, Anticancer Drugs from Animals, Plants, and Microorganisms and Lead Compounds from Medicinal Plants for the Treatment of Cancer. Warden (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- None of those books are on anticancer plants, but on substances derived from plants - a different topic.
  - The first book, for example, is called Plants that Fight Cancer. It lists and reviews the plants, not just particular chemicals. Your claim is therefore false. Warden (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    - Not that I could see (admittedly from the limited amount available on Google Books). What "anticancer plant" can you see listed, on which page? Alexbrn 09:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
      - The book details over 150 plants such as

aconitum napellus — page 160
acronychia baueri — page 74
annona purpurea — page 81

Warden (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

- - - - Well, I don't have access to those pages so I can't see. But just to be clear, you are stating the book describes these plants directly as "anticancer plants" ? Alexbrn 10:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
        It uses the word anticancer repeatedly in a variety of phrases such as "plant species with anticancer activity". Warden (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Subject passes GNG. That the article is a mess and the content is subject to dispute and debate is neither here nor there. Lack of coverage of the Pacific Yew like THIS is the biggest content failure, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's a lot of material on that topic at Paclitaxel#Production Alexbrn 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. It seems like the nominator really only has a complaint with the title, which should be dealt with by a discussion to rename if "anticancer plant" is not the most accurate or best-sourced descriptive. It doesn't appear to be in dispute that the underlying subject is notable regardless of what it's called. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I would not say that the article is about non-notable topic, because it is not clear what that topic actually is. It could be the words "Anticancer plants" - in that case it is obviously not notable. It could be the plants that have been used to cure cancer (that's what the source "Ethnobotanical Survey of Anti-Cancer Plants in Ogun State, Nigeria" talks about). It could be plants that actually do cure cancer. It could be plants with chemical substances that somehow influence cancer cells. It could be about chemical substances themselves. All those things are different and whatever we choose, most of the material will have to go.

For a second point let's see if the current version () has any material worth saving. The lead section is: "Anti-cancer plants (or plants as source of anti cancer agents) are plants which are believed by some to be cancer healing or contain anticancer agents.". Three sources - and yet, not a single of them actually supports the statement! Those sources were added () by the same user (User:Turboscience), who wrote the first version - and added almost all other sources (). And that was done specifically to show the use of the name ()! So, if the author of the article couldn't use the sources correctly in case of such simple matter, how can we trust the rest of the article?

For a third point why the material should not be kept I would like to note that the author of it is a sockpuppet of a banned (or, if you wish, blocked with no hope of unblocking) user Ttturbo (talk · contribs). Now, the problem is that the actual evidence is in Lithuanian Knowledge. It does show that lt:Naudotojas:Turboscience is a sockpuppet of lt:Naudotojas:Turbo, who is known to be "Ttturbo" here. Unfortunately, the evidence is in Lithuanian (for example, the note of blocking administrator - ), thus I am afraid that this part will be harder for me to demonstrate "beyond reasonable doubt" here...

Fourth, there was an effort to clean this article up (). As I note in the talk page (), it was not much of a success... I guess that the one who tried to do so is not very happy with the result either (). The failure of this try can be seen as evidence that, perhaps, getting something that looks reasonable here is impossible. Unless we count throwing everything (even the name) away and starting from scratch - but that is not different from deletion...

So, even if we are going to ignore the third point, we have an article with no material trustworthy, an article that is a mess with no clear topic, an article with a name that is clearly wrong for all reasonable topics. There is nothing left to save. Perhaps in some other cases it is reasonable to argue that "deletion is not cleanup", but in this case it is probably time to ignore that "rule" per WP:IAR... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Valuable stub which can be expanded into even more valuable article with addition of specifics and if not allowed to become an advertisement for alternative medical or self treatment. Should be tagged as stub. Did some perliminary editing which I hope is helpful. Maybe worth a second look. Albiet (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Albiet

Well, you defined this as an article about "plants or their derivatives, useable in treatment of cancers" ... which is not a classification from any source that I can see, and is going to be pretty restrictive (remember sources for this will need to be WP:MEDRS compliant). A looser classification would be "plants or their derivatives which have shown anti-cancer potential in research". But this troubles me: we're not following sources, we're synthesizing a topic (and one that overlaps heavily with List of plants used in herbalism in the second classification). Alexbrn 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't classify this article as anything. Today is the first time that I've even seen the article. Might I suggest though that with my initial edits, the article could be made far more coherent by also moving the page to "Plant sources of anticancer agents". This would also allow for the removal of all of the "not in citation" notes as to sources 1 - 3. This article is clearly salvageable and could be developed into a valuable addition to the Knowledge. Albiet (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet, sorry forgot to sign when saved earlier

Also, my most extensive edits toward greater cohesion and coherence are included in the articles "History" section. Albiet (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

I think it might be a good idea to add a diff: . Anyway, if you really want to write a decent new article with a new name, new topic and new sourced content without actual deletion (and are able to pull that off), that's OK with me. But the text you added is not a step in direction of a decent article. Almost all of it is "offtopic" ("For example, the component of the foxglove, which is active at remedying congestive heart failure, is digitalis." - the definition doesn't say anything about "congestive heart failure"). Also, the rest of the text becomes "offtopic" as well: "Plants like medical cannabis are used for palliative treatment rather than targeting the tumor." is the only sentence that talks about actual usability in real treatment... The rest of the text would have to be deleted.

Of course, I should note that such process is almost indistinguishable from deletion, followed by writing of a new unrelated article in a new place...

Oh, and you have to choose: "Plant sources of anticancer agents" is completely different from "whole plants or their derivatives, useable in treatment of cancers". You can have sources of chemical substances that are useless in treatment themselves (having some substances in too small amounts, or having substances that kill tumors together with the patient)... And you have to show that someone actually groups the plants in such way. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we have no sourced definition of "anticancer plants", the first sentence of the article (and your re-write) effectively defines that classification. If we re-title the article and gut it that could work (logically equivalent to deleting). Would you want the new article to be about proven anticancer agents or potential anticancer agents; and would the anticancer effect be in petri dishes, in laboratory animals, or in people? Are there suitable sources? Alexbrn 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(add) and the new definition you've given in the lede ("An Anti-cancer plant is a whole plant thats derivative(s) are useable for treatment of cancers") means we should delete the whole body, since so far as I can see none of the substances mentioned are "usable for treatment" -- they're all just lab experiments. Alexbrn 21:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

MOVED ARTICLE TO Plant sources of anti-cancer agents Albiet (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Albiet

Cool — with the new name and scope I think we have the basis of something worthwhile. Martynas Patasius — if you don't object, I suggest withdrawing my nomination for deletion and we can wrap this up. Alexbrn 07:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you had to wait for my permission: by now the article () has a different name, different content, different topic and different authors. It is as if the article has been deleted and a new one created, just using the first one as a source of inspiration. Even from a completely procedural point of view those two articles probably shouldn't share an AFD discussion. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Proper notable topic, lots of sources. I appreciate the move to the new title. --cyclopia 21:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy keep per criterion 1 at WP:SK. The new name for the article has clarified its scope and several references describe the topic. Axl ¤ 09:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment N.B. after largely rewriting the article according to its new name, I withdrew the deletion nomination (see above); just waiting now for a passing admin to close this as a keep ... Alexbrn 09:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Manhattan Review

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

As is, the article fails to meet WP:N. Two of the three references come from the company site, and the third reference is 6 years old, from an article that isn't about the company per se, but just references a company spokesman commenting on the article topic. A search reveals no other references of note. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 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) 00:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could merge to Joern Meissner. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There are some more recent references, for example, Business Week included this company in a fairly brief overview of GMAT preparation options in 2011. I vote to keep it in.Weblife (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep as this seems to have grown from 3 sources to 7 and Google search has some hits... Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Weak delete - there are some online sources, but this is quite marginal in notability. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete -- article withdrawn by uploader. — CactusWriter 00:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Big Damn Heores

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

My original concern was "It may have been founded by a notable person, but this band has not received enough coverage in reliable sources. Not tagging for A7 due to the fact that it was founded by someone notable.", but the article was de-prodded by the author. While he later added three references, only the first source (Supernova) shows much promise (indeed, if consensus determines that Supernova.com is a reliable source I'll be happy to withdraw this AFD), while the other two appear to be (unreliable) podcasts. I'm pretty sure Tyler Boyco is notable, but unfortunately, notability does not extend to the band he founded. An alternative could be to mention the band in Boyco's article and create redirects for "Big Damn Heroes (band)" and "Thrillhouse (band)" to that article, but that will depend on the consensus of this AfD. Narutolovehinata5 05:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 05:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 05:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Supernova is not a reliable source, about. "online music community which actively promotes its artists". duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Fix name and redirect to Tyler_Boyco#Music_career. This is already fairly adequately covered in Boyco's article and considering the lack of reliable sources, I can't see where this merits its own article at this point in time. The only relatively usable source was an article by the student paper of a college that one of them attended. Other than that, there's really nothing at this point in time. That might change later in time, but right now there just isn't enough for a standalone article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see Boyco being notable, let alone any of his bands. Band lacks coverage, awards, charting. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT 05:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Jack S. Margolis

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

Non-notable writer and actor, fails AUTHOR, NACTOR and GNG. YousufMiah (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - article meets criteria for notability. It asserts notability as a counterculture writer of multiple books and is supported by verifiable, independent references. reddogsix (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually have to argue against many of the sources as far as notability giving goes. IMDb isn't usable to show notability as anyone can edit it. Merchant sources such as Amazon and CD Universe are really discouraged in general for the obvious reasons (the sites' purpose is to sell you things), and many of the other sources are primary. The NIU source is good, albeit maybe slightly trivial in nature, and the Hartford Courant article is also good. All in all, those are probably the only two sources I'd keep, but we definitely need more as far as showing solid notability goes. I don't think (or at least I hope) that sources will be that hard to find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Now that I've cleaned out the blatantly unusable sources, I've managed to add in just enough to where it should be a comfortable enough keep. Now what I didn't add were the amount of sources that listed some of his books as various sources and recommended reading. Here are some of them: , , , , , , , pharmacology textbook). Some of what I've listed are "pop culture" type books, but Margolis is listed in some textbooks as well. I have a feeling that there is probably more out there that isn't on the internet, which isn't entirely surprising given the time period. There's enough to suggest that his work is still considered relatively influential today. He's not Timothy O'Leary, but he's still notable enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Worth keeping for The Child's Garden of Grass alone. Margolis, if I recall correctly, was featured in articles/interviews (?) in Creem and Rolling Stone magazines when that recording was at it's most popular. Passes AUTHOR Nos. 3 & 4. Cypella (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Tim Jenkins

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted because it failed WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. The article was re-created after the St. Louis Rams signed Jenkins as their 4th-string quarterback. The article was not substantially different but an attempted speedy deletion was declined. Nothing important has changed since last year; Jenkins still hasn't played a snap of professional football and it's unlikely that he will. He has received very little coverage during the preseason. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, still has yet to see a single snap in a regular season game, and most likely won't unless Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens and Austin Davis go down with injuries, which most likely won't happen, since the Rams would most likely sign another QB. Also, I feel like Jenkins may possibly be cut, so his chances of taking a snap in a regular season game won't be happening anytime soon. Zappa O Mati 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Per Nom and ZappaOMati; it failed to meet WP:NGRIDIRON then, and fails to meet it now. Perhaps Jenkins may play a regular season game in the future, but that's a discussion for another day and place. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 02:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete but I'd be open to Userfy. It may be too soon, but it may be too soon only by a few weeks (or never). If there's significant coverage that I'm not finding, he could clear WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Fails both GNG and the pro sports low bar. NFL teams carry no more than 3 quarterbacks, by the way — soon to be cut. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - This subject was already deleted once. See the result of the first debate. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON....William 21:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Glossary of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar

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

This is an unnecessary collection of in-universe details without any sources to provide real world importance. TTN (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - It is a horrible mess, but deletion is not clean up and per WP:CSC#2. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The list is an overly thorough mess that would be reduced to nothing by regular standards, likely with nothing remaining but whatever exists in the current article. Wikia exists for such in-depth information, while a fiction article on this site relies on concise summaries to get the information across. There is no worth in keeping this, much like the dozens of other lists that were removed years ago. TTN (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

LISTN states, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Given CSC and and LIST which allows for glossaries, this page aides in comprehension of the subject and whatever issues should be fixed. The topic is also not 'the glossary', but the notable topic of "The King of Braves GaoGaiGar". All the pages need a lot of work, but deletion is a last resort. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general" ? The topic is glossary/terms/concepts of TKoBGGG (and not TKoBGGG itself, contrary to what you claim, which is located at The King of Braves GaoGaiGar, so where is the secondary coverage about these terms ? What about WP:NOTPLOT ? What can't it be in a main article ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - AfD is not cleanup, but the article is unencyclopedic. I can't see how a list of terminology for a series can be notable. This belongs in a Wikia wiki, not on Knowledge. Narutolovehinata5 10:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete this articles fails WP:GNG in that there is no significant coverage from reliable independent sources that would establish the topic's real-world notability, and would help the article to be more than a regurgitation of plot that violates WP:NOTPLOT. Since this article also consists in a user's personal summary/interpretation of plot elements from primary sources, there's a huge risk of it being WP:OR. As per Narutolovehinata5, there is no chance for "Glossary" articles to ever meet our guidelines.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, I cited something which says it could meet it, but merging or cleaning it up is fine. It does not need to meet "real world notability" to exist as a list. The same as how most of these PLOT violating "list of episodes" pages are. Japanese wiki frequently has a section devoted to terminology on their pages. I'll move to merge, but let's not delete that which can be saved. AFD is not clean up afterall. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:LISTN "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The whole point of WP:N is that "Knowledge articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", which includes lists. So yes, it needs to meet "real world notability". Being a list is not a free pass. Most of "lists of episodes" do meet the criteria as most TV episodes have received collective attention in secondary sources. That is not the case of glossary/plot clarification.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what are you thinking of as the "topic" here, Folken? postdlf (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The topic is "terms from the anime and manga series The King of Braves GaoGaiGar and The King of Braves GaoGaiGar FINAL". Find independent reliable sources for that and the article can stay as a stand alone, otherwise it has to be deleted or merged.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Userfy to ChrisGualtieri. If Chris is willing to improve the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete Knowledge is fundamentally not a glossary. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete Knowledge is fundamentally not a glossary. Occasionally a glossary may be necessary as a reference appendix to a large category of articles, such as Glossary of poetry terms or Glossary of botanical terms. One based on an individual cartoon show is pretty ridiculous though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge with List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters#TSR 2012 - Fiend Folio (1981). Some have supported keeping a separate article, but with the article being as brief as it is, a merge does not seem unreasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Flail snail

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

This article does not assert notability. It is simply a minor publication list from primary sources without any actual real world information. TTN (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete as not being independently notable, unless someone knows of a valid redirect/merge target. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Flail Snail has been cited independently as being an example of a bad monster/game design. But the current article would need to be rewritten to reflect that. Something I do not have the free time for. Web Warlock (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Which sounds to me like it will have only received a trivial amount of coverage from a few sources, most of which would be unreliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
no independent third party sources to indicate notability. delete or merge if there is a suitable target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, unless there is evidence of meaningful information from the Paizo and Necromancer sources, which might make it possible to expand and keep/restore the article. —Torchiest _edits 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that both Paizo and Necromancer are primary sources for the creature and cannot be used to establish notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Not notable enough to have its own page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Web Warlock. Multiple sources already are documented in the article, only one of which is primary, and the fact that it has been subject of ridicule within the gaming community makes up for the fact that it hasn't been seen in spin-off media like video games. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly doubt any of those are reliable, or that the coverage is in-depth. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources listed that are not TSR/Official Dungeons and Dragons are merely primary source game guides themselves. If Flail snail is as our topic sentence indicates a "dungeons and dragons monster", then those sources are not about the actual subject of the article, they are about a different critter in a different game that is also called "flail snail". If the article is about "the fictional critter used in multiple game sources" then the Necromancer and Piazo sources are as primary non independent for that subject as TSR sources are for the specific D&D critter. In addition, the author of the Piazo material Colin McComb is long time former TSR employee, and not someone "independent". And the " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters or Delete, article fails WP:GNG per the complete lack of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep per web warlock - I recall out-of-universe discussion along the same lines (flaw in game/monster design). Sadly I have just rid myself of alot of roleplaying material :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nooooooo! If not for the ridiculous costs of international shipping, I would have gladly taken it off your hands. ;) BOZ (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that I need to point out to such experienced editors that ~~Webwarlock's~~ an assertion that "sources exist" is not really worth a hill of beans without the presentation of sources to verify that they do in fact cover the subject in a significant manner and were actually produced by independent, reliable sources. And thus "per ~~webwarlock~~ X, because they made a claim that sources exist" are of even less value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same; also, web warlock didn't vote either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

oops, I edited my comment above slightly. I think webwarlock has may not have yet actually !voted because he is looking to see if he can find the sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters seems reasonable here. Technical 13 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Richman

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Notability seems marginal at best, doesn't seem to be anything substantial other than youtube hits and notable relatives, entire article reads more like a promotional bio than an encyclopedia article, and no real sources beyond a few fluff press releases and blog reviews Jac16888 01:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep per these sources: 1 2 3. These could be just simple promotional stuff, which is why my vote's a weak one. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The first one is maybe borderline, the second two are clearly press-releases by the subjects PR (note that the same articles can be found on more than one website)--Jac16888 18:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

the first is also a pr piece, by LUCK Media & Marketing. Also available on the Business Wire. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Lacks independent coverage. This is one big advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Help Requested. Could I ask for assistance with how this article should be worded so that we can keep our (many hours) of work putting it together? I've been reviewing other Wiki articles with Oliver's managers and felt we were following protocol. We felt the newly added References would help to establish credibility, but we will remove those if you feel they don't do this. I would be grateful for any direction. Oliver's most recent work is his role in the new Craig Robinson sitcom which has been picked up by NBC for a possible mid-season replacement. He is also working on another New Media pilot "Captain Bill's" produced by Michael Zack and Alessandra Ascoli. Thank you in advance for any help! jquinn33 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The problem isn't with how the article is worded, it's a question of whether the subject is notable by Knowledge's standards: as well as the general notability guideline, the guidelines for entertainers are at WP:ENTERTAINER and for musicians at WP:MUSIC. Since this individual is still living, the Biographies of living persons policy must be followed. In addition, Mr. Richman's managers should not be involved in editing any articles on him or his work, per the conflict of interest guideline. And if you are working that closely with them, you may have a conflict of interest, in which case you should not be working on this article either. — Gwalla | Talk 22:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Collasping per WP:WALLOFTEXT
We object to deletion of this article on the following grounds: Knowledge prides itself that it is factual and objective. However, many of the "facts" about our famous family (Buddy Hackett, Sandy Hackett, Peter Mark Richman, Ron Miller), written by non-managers, etc. are WRONG....this evidences Knowledge's total inability to manage accuracy over its content...better to let strangers contribute to an article, making it totally inaccurate. Instead, Wiki has exercised its censorship power by deciding, based on its employee's opinions (rather than the public's), what is "notable" and what is not. Obviously, this is subjective and NOT at all objective or factually based, but rather someone's misguided, skewed opinion. Our dealings with Knowledge (we have had other issues - this is not an isolated case) have been less than professional, often dealing with clerks who are sarcastic, power-hungry and biased. This is evidence that the so-called online "objective, factually based" encyclopedia is nothing more than groups of subordinates who support each other's skewed and misguided opinions. The clearly ineffective idea that total strangers with inaccurate information with possible hidden agendas have the freedom to alter the public's opinion, simply by typing in whatever they like, while people with accurate knowledge of articles they deem "notable" are prohibited, is a new kind of censorship - clearly a DANGER to readers everywhere. Obviously, the subordinates at Knowledge have opinions which they deem more important than the public-at-large. When it became clear to us that Knowledge would impose it's own "opinion" about what people want to read by determining what is "notable" and what is "not" and that they opened our article up for "debate" (a forum in which their subordinates can exercise their "opinion," power and agenda), we did go ahead and delete the content on our article, as we do not want to subject an innocent child to the negative, lynch mob which allows and encourages support for its own frenzy. To our surprise, the article content was restored by Knowledge so that its judgement of whether or not an innocent child is "notable" enough can continue to be debated "publicly" (actually, amongst Knowledge subordinates). Not only do "we, the people," have absolutely NO control over the purported and "promoted" objective online encyclopedia, which defines its existence by allowing the public to think that its content is informational, and open for public debate, we have absolutely NO control as to whether or not we wish to have an article on their godawful, inaccurate, hypocritical, purported online objective website. If Knowledge finds a so-called forum in which to release the stress of their subordinates, they have the right to do the exact opposite of what birthed this so-called forum to begin with - anything to keep the lynch mob feeding. I request that a new forum be opened for "public" debate in which "we, the people" can judge Knowledge's policies and justify the existence of the people over on the other end reading this right now. If Knowledge is truly as objective as it states that it is, let's open a new forum. I, for one, as well as many others I know, will be very happy to "debate" the process in which individuals are chosen and/or allowed to determine the future of articles of interest to the public-at-large as well as other Knowledge defects. In our case, if Knowledge wants to delete this article, I guess that is its option. However, unable to delete an article WE started and which no one else has made updates to besides Wiki admin, when we remove the content (due to their warnings) and it is simply put back without our consent, that becomes a legal matter for our attorney regarding our legal rights - something, at which point, Knowledge will have to answer for - we ALL answer to a court of law - yes, even Knowledge. Knowledge can either 1) keep this article up and delete its warnings - allowing "we, the people" to contribute to an article we deem "notable" or; 2) delete this article, as it warned it would do and we will can simply call it a day. If not, it is requested that you immediately post your justification for allowing this lynch mob to continue (this would allow for a "real" debate about Knowledge), as Knowledge obviously does not want or believe (according to its "policy") that this article should remain. It is currently unclear as to what reason then, (other than lynch mobbing) justifies the purpose that this article remains, considering the circumstances and facts of this case, other than to allow Knowledge contributors to voice their "subjective" opinions while others are unable to effect any change at all, regardless of their "opinions." Further, it is also requested that any legal basis and authority Knowledge asserts in this case, be posted as well. This is the real debate. Any "contributors" out there who have had similar censorship issues with the "others" (purported "contributors"....although I'm not sure what they contribute other than creating self-serving forums or purported "discussions") on the other side of Knowledge, please post your comments, as is our turn to sit in judgement of them and get our lynch mob going. DO NOT REMOVE this post. It is important that this message remains so that the public-at-large can determine whether or not Knowledge is a new form of censorship disguised as an objective, informational online website. The REMOVAL or DELETION of this post will prove my point and it will be reposted in some other Knowledge "forum/discussion" which we deem to be more appropriate for this topic.

Collasping per WP:WALLOFTEXT

We object to deletion of this article on the following grounds: Knowledge prides itself that it is factual and objective. However, many of the "facts" about our famous family (Buddy Hackett, Sandy Hackett, Peter Mark Richman, Ron Miller), written by non-managers, etc. are WRONG....this evidences Knowledge's total inability to manage accuracy over its content...better to let strangers contribute to an article, making it totally inaccurate. Instead, Wiki has exercised its censorship power by deciding, based on its employee's opinions (rather than the public's), what is "notable" and what is not. Obviously, this is subjective and NOT at all objective or factually based, but rather someone's misguided, skewed opinion. Our dealings with Knowledge (we have had other issues - this is not an isolated case) have been less than professional, often dealing with clerks who are sarcastic, power-hungry and biased. This is evidence that the so-called online "objective, factually based" encyclopedia is nothing more than groups of subordinates who support each other's skewed and misguided opinions. The clearly ineffective idea that total strangers with inaccurate information with possible hidden agendas have the freedom to alter the public's opinion, simply by typing in whatever they like, while people with accurate knowledge of articles they deem "notable" are prohibited, is a new kind of censorship - clearly a DANGER to readers everywhere. Obviously, the subordinates at Knowledge have opinions which they deem more important than the public-at-large.

When it became clear to us that Knowledge would impose it's own "opinion" about what people want to read by determining what is "notable" and what is "not" and that they opened our article up for "debate" (a forum in which their subordinates can exercise their "opinion," power and agenda), we did go ahead and delete the content on our article, as we do not want to subject an innocent child to the negative, lynch mob which allows and encourages support for its own frenzy. To our surprise, the article content was restored by Knowledge so that its judgement of whether or not an innocent child is "notable" enough can continue to be debated "publicly" (actually, amongst Knowledge subordinates). Not only do "we, the people," have absolutely NO control over the purported and "promoted" objective online encyclopedia, which defines its existence by allowing the public to think that its content is informational, and open for public debate, we have absolutely NO control as to whether or not we wish to have an article on their godawful, inaccurate, hypocritical, purported online objective website. If Knowledge finds a so-called forum in which to release the stress of their subordinates, they have the right to do the exact opposite of what birthed this so-called forum to begin with - anything to keep the lynch mob feeding.

I request that a new forum be opened for "public" debate in which "we, the people" can judge Knowledge's policies and justify the existence of the people over on the other end reading this right now. If Knowledge is truly as objective as it states that it is, let's open a new forum. I, for one, as well as many others I know, will be very happy to "debate" the process in which individuals are chosen and/or allowed to determine the future of articles of interest to the public-at-large as well as other Knowledge defects. In our case, if Knowledge wants to delete this article, I guess that is its option. However, unable to delete an article WE started and which no one else has made updates to besides Wiki admin, when we remove the content (due to their warnings) and it is simply put back without our consent, that becomes a legal matter for our attorney regarding our legal rights - something, at which point, Knowledge will have to answer for - we ALL answer to a court of law - yes, even Knowledge.

Knowledge can either 1) keep this article up and delete its warnings - allowing "we, the people" to contribute to an article we deem "notable" or; 2) delete this article, as it warned it would do and we will can simply call it a day. If not, it is requested that you immediately post your justification for allowing this lynch mob to continue (this would allow for a "real" debate about Knowledge), as Knowledge obviously does not want or believe (according to its "policy") that this article should remain. It is currently unclear as to what reason then, (other than lynch mobbing) justifies the purpose that this article remains, considering the circumstances and facts of this case, other than to allow Knowledge contributors to voice their "subjective" opinions while others are unable to effect any change at all, regardless of their "opinions." Further, it is also requested that any legal basis and authority Knowledge asserts in this case, be posted as well. This is the real debate.

Any "contributors" out there who have had similar censorship issues with the "others" (purported "contributors"....although I'm not sure what they contribute other than creating self-serving forums or purported "discussions") on the other side of Knowledge, please post your comments, as is our turn to sit in judgement of them and get our lynch mob going.

DO NOT REMOVE this post. It is important that this message remains so that the public-at-large can determine whether or not Knowledge is a new form of censorship disguised as an objective, informational online website. The REMOVAL or DELETION of this post will prove my point and it will be reposted in some other Knowledge "forum/discussion" which we deem to be more appropriate for this topic.

LisaDMillerHackett (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's quite a rant, I'm not going to go through and point out all the ways in which it is wrong but I will make a few comments, before which I will say please do not make legal threats. A) If the original creator of the articles wishes it deleted they are free to do so by nominating it for deletion under CSD:G7 - not by simply blanking it. B) You seem to misunderstand how Knowledge works, there are no subordinates, clerks or employees - everybody is a volunteer with the same amount of editorial power - yourself included, and nobody has any right, legal or otherwise to a Knowledge article (Knowledge being a private website) C) it has been judged by some editors, myself included, that currently your son does not meet the requirements of our policies in order for him to have an article, had you taken the time to read some of our policies you would have discovered that this could have happened, likewise you would have learnt that you have absolutely zero control or ownership over an article - if you didn't want the article to be possibly deleted, you should not have created it. D) The presence of this article is clearly part of an attempt to promote the subject - something which we absolutely do not allow under any circumstance. E) You seem to be under the impression that this discussion is some kind of attack or "smear campaign" against your family. It is not. The simple fact is that thousands of Knowledge articles are created everyday, most of them about people who are not particularly noteworthy - we can't have articles about everybody and his Grandma hence this discussion and the thousands of others like it. I would be happy to discuss this with you further, provided you can lay of the attacks, insults and threats--Jac16888 00:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete Lisa's attempt to derail this entire discussion and the rampant conflict of interests issues aside, I've gone ahead and done a search for sources.

Richman was featured on a morning show on a Fox News station here
Richman was discussed by Lisa Dawn Miller (who is presumably the above editor) in an interview with Talent Spotlight Magazine here.
He also has an interview here with Champagne Sundays Magazine.

The magazines are not particularly strong indicators of notability-- Talent Spotlight is his own mother talking about him. Champagne Sundays does not appear to be a particularly well-circulated or important publication. That leaves the Fox News interview, which is rather short, and basically constitutes an instance of having a single source with significant coverage. Sources currently in the article are either trivial mentions (i.e. here), unreliable (i.e. IMDB entries or this review blog), or are basically press releases (i.e. here). Some coverage is there, but it's generally too sparse, promotional, or unreliable and I can't support keeping the article on that basis. I, JethroBT 06:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for discussing opinions, Texan or otherwise, on how Knowledge fundamentally works.
Texas Court of Appeals 14th District rules that "Knowledge is inherently "unreliable" - I understand why. See discussion below. This needs to be circulated more: http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/24/court-holds-that-wikipedia-entries-are-inherently-unreliable/ This is my last post regarding this issue, as I actually do have a real life. This response is not intended to be insulting but is rather, a response based on my experience in dealing with a Knowledge community I do not believe works. If it is insulting, that means you are simply taking it personal which you advise the subjects of “notability” determination to reject. With regards to the first post (in response to mine above – I can’t refer to a specific person because everyone who posts on here has an unidentifiable, nameless handle and I challenge anyone to give me their real contact information since you all have mine). In response to A) I don’t have the time to follow a procedure I don’t agree with – it seems counterproductive to me. If you want to delete it, PLEASE do! That’s our goal too! B) This is America. Everyone in America has the right to file a civil legal against another party, period. However, deciding whether a case is “notable” (to use your terminology) or in the real world, has legal merit is not up to nameless volunteers, but rather, a court of law. It’s called the U.S. Judicial System. C) Then, delete it. There is NO purpose of this discussion. We all agree, however, our reasons differ. No one in our family including the administrators of the estates, myself included do NOT wish to have a Knowledge page. EVERYTHING is incorrect in the articles of our famous family members. D) We do not view Knowledge as a successful avenue to “promote” anything. The views to the subject’s article here (as well as other famous family members) are not “notable” or significant. The subject has already shared the stage with Stevie Wonder LIVE for 8000 people and appeared on major network television, including the nationally syndicated “Young Icons,” clearly more notable than Knowledge. Regarding the “Grandma” remark, which apparently you don’t find insulting or “attacking” to write, I will make the assumption that you won’t find this insulting either: While apparently Knowledge doesn’t let “everyone and their Grandma” have a Knowledge page, they DO let everyone and the Grandma contribute to articles on subjects they know nothing about. This is evidenced by the inaccurate information that has been posted about our famous family – which is why we don’t want these pages on a source we consider highly unreliable. In response to the Weak one (last post), I have not attempted anything. I’ve succeeded in expressing a truthful perspective, based on fact not opinion. This has obviously gotten under someone’s skin by simply stating the facts and speaking the truth. Your attempt to give an appearance as though you’ve searched for reliable sources and your subjective opinion (and that’s all it is – is YOUR opinion), about the notability of those sources, contradicts your reference below to Knowledge’s “conflict of interest issues” in which it is stated that: “COI is an incompatibility between the aim of Knowledge, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.” Further, “COI editing involves contributing to Knowledge in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Knowledge, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.” This editor is trying to REMOVE this article and others of our famous family. We DON’T want to be on this purported encyclopedia. Further, this idea that Knowledge contributors produce a “neutral, reliably sourced” encyclopedia is simply untrue and I can support this by stating that; A) the articles regarding other famous family members are grossly inaccurate; B) Whoever made the last entry was conveniently selective in choosing online sources regarding this article – leaving out major network television appearances, such as “Young Icons,” which is a nationally syndicated television show and making a determination that a morning FOX show is not noteworthy, when in fact, it is and this subject has appeared on several major network morning and other shows. It appears that Knowledge contributors are anything BUT neutral, deciding for themselves what sources are “noteworthy,” then, if trying to advance their own agenda, as in this case (arguing for the sake of arguing – and accomplishing nothing), claim that any “noteworthy” sources, such as FOX or any other major network appears, are simply “unreliable.” It is blatantly obvious that a contributor can paint whatever story they want by stating that a if credible source is indeed “noteworthy,” it is simply is deemed “unreliable” and if the source is indeed “reliable,” it is simply deemed not “noteworthy.” Further, it is easy to omit reliable, noteworthy sources in order to advance one’s own agenda. C) Knowledge is anything but “neutral.” When one of you don’t like what I’ve written, whether factual or not, you can simply mark my comments as a “wall of text” in which the Knowledge definition states that my comments are “intentionally disruptive.” Again, who determines whether or not something is “disruptive?” My intent was not to be disruptive but rather, have an open, HONEST conversation about “policies” everyone seems to link to which have no method for applying such “policy” to one’s comments or text. In other words, anyone can state that one has a “conflict of interest” or is “being disruptive,” or that a post is “damaging” simply if a contributor doesn’t like what they are hearing. However, there is no process in which to determine what facts, if any, even support another contributor’s assessment or use of a “policy.” Therefore, this “neutral, reliable” online encyclopedia is run by unqualified people, with limited or no knowledge of, not only the article to which they contribute, but to “policies” in which they are not required to justify their application. Further, if someone doesn’t like what they read (in this case, judgments about themselves and their use of, or lack thereof, “policies,” rather than the individual and subjects THEY judge), they can simply, delete those comments and/or link to a policy where no determination by an objective party is actually made as to whether or not that policy even applies. My conclusion and resolution to all of this has not changed; A) please delete this article; B) please delete articles of all of our famous family members; C) My efforts here are a complete waste of time because someone with a nameless handle and computer to hide behind, will simply delete these comments and/or attach a link to a policy in which there is no reliable method to determine whether or not it applies; D) After researching cases involving Knowledge, legal and otherwise, I have concluded that noteworthy, reputable, significant and reliable parties do NOT view Knowledge as a reliable source of information, for all the reasons I stated above AND for the very specific comment posted above by one of the Knowledge contributors regarding “grandmothers.” Knowledge simply lets everyone and their grandmother edit an article, most of them unqualified to do so. Knowledge contributors are an unreliable source of credible information and therefore, Knowledge is unreliable and not noteworthy enough to be a reference regarding information about our family. E) Please delete ALL articles regarding our famous family.LisaDMillerHackett (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for discussing opinions, Texan or otherwise, on how Knowledge fundamentally works.

Texas Court of Appeals 14th District rules that "Knowledge is inherently "unreliable" - I understand why. See discussion below. This needs to be circulated more:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/24/court-holds-that-wikipedia-entries-are-inherently-unreliable/

This is my last post regarding this issue, as I actually do have a real life.

This response is not intended to be insulting but is rather, a response based on my experience in dealing with a Knowledge community I do not believe works. If it is insulting, that means you are simply taking it personal which you advise the subjects of “notability” determination to reject. With regards to the first post (in response to mine above – I can’t refer to a specific person because everyone who posts on here has an unidentifiable, nameless handle and I challenge anyone to give me their real contact information since you all have mine). In response to A) I don’t have the time to follow a procedure I don’t agree with – it seems counterproductive to me. If you want to delete it, PLEASE do! That’s our goal too! B) This is America. Everyone in America has the right to file a civil legal against another party, period. However, deciding whether a case is “notable” (to use your terminology) or in the real world, has legal merit is not up to nameless volunteers, but rather, a court of law. It’s called the U.S. Judicial System. C) Then, delete it. There is NO purpose of this discussion. We all agree, however, our reasons differ. No one in our family including the administrators of the estates, myself included do NOT wish to have a Knowledge page. EVERYTHING is incorrect in the articles of our famous family members. D) We do not view Knowledge as a successful avenue to “promote” anything. The views to the subject’s article here (as well as other famous family members) are not “notable” or significant. The subject has already shared the stage with Stevie Wonder LIVE for 8000 people and appeared on major network television, including the nationally syndicated “Young Icons,” clearly more notable than Knowledge. Regarding the “Grandma” remark, which apparently you don’t find insulting or “attacking” to write, I will make the assumption that you won’t find this insulting either: While apparently Knowledge doesn’t let “everyone and their Grandma” have a Knowledge page, they DO let everyone and the Grandma contribute to articles on subjects they know nothing about. This is evidenced by the inaccurate information that has been posted about our famous family – which is why we don’t want these pages on a source we consider highly unreliable.

In response to the Weak one (last post), I have not attempted anything. I’ve succeeded in expressing a truthful perspective, based on fact not opinion. This has obviously gotten under someone’s skin by simply stating the facts and speaking the truth. Your attempt to give an appearance as though you’ve searched for reliable sources and your subjective opinion (and that’s all it is – is YOUR opinion), about the notability of those sources, contradicts your reference below to Knowledge’s “conflict of interest issues” in which it is stated that:

“COI is an incompatibility between the aim of Knowledge, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.” Further, “COI editing involves contributing to Knowledge in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Knowledge, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.”

This editor is trying to REMOVE this article and others of our famous family. We DON’T want to be on this purported encyclopedia. Further, this idea that Knowledge contributors produce a “neutral, reliably sourced” encyclopedia is simply untrue and I can support this by stating that; A) the articles regarding other famous family members are grossly inaccurate; B) Whoever made the last entry was conveniently selective in choosing online sources regarding this article – leaving out major network television appearances, such as “Young Icons,” which is a nationally syndicated television show and making a determination that a morning FOX show is not noteworthy, when in fact, it is and this subject has appeared on several major network morning and other shows. It appears that Knowledge contributors are anything BUT neutral, deciding for themselves what sources are “noteworthy,” then, if trying to advance their own agenda, as in this case (arguing for the sake of arguing – and accomplishing nothing), claim that any “noteworthy” sources, such as FOX or any other major network appears, are simply “unreliable.” It is blatantly obvious that a contributor can paint whatever story they want by stating that a if credible source is indeed “noteworthy,” it is simply is deemed “unreliable” and if the source is indeed “reliable,” it is simply deemed not “noteworthy.” Further, it is easy to omit reliable, noteworthy sources in order to advance one’s own agenda. C) Knowledge is anything but “neutral.” When one of you don’t like what I’ve written, whether factual or not, you can simply mark my comments as a “wall of text” in which the Knowledge definition states that my comments are “intentionally disruptive.” Again, who determines whether or not something is “disruptive?” My intent was not to be disruptive but rather, have an open, HONEST conversation about “policies” everyone seems to link to which have no method for applying such “policy” to one’s comments or text. In other words, anyone can state that one has a “conflict of interest” or is “being disruptive,” or that a post is “damaging” simply if a contributor doesn’t like what they are hearing. However, there is no process in which to determine what facts, if any, even support another contributor’s assessment or use of a “policy.” Therefore, this “neutral, reliable” online encyclopedia is run by unqualified people, with limited or no knowledge of, not only the article to which they contribute, but to “policies” in which they are not required to justify their application. Further, if someone doesn’t like what they read (in this case, judgments about themselves and their use of, or lack thereof, “policies,” rather than the individual and subjects THEY judge), they can simply, delete those comments and/or link to a policy where no determination by an objective party is actually made as to whether or not that policy even applies.

My conclusion and resolution to all of this has not changed; A) please delete this article; B) please delete articles of all of our famous family members; C) My efforts here are a complete waste of time because someone with a nameless handle and computer to hide behind, will simply delete these comments and/or attach a link to a policy in which there is no reliable method to determine whether or not it applies; D) After researching cases involving Knowledge, legal and otherwise, I have concluded that noteworthy, reputable, significant and reliable parties do NOT view Knowledge as a reliable source of information, for all the reasons I stated above AND for the very specific comment posted above by one of the Knowledge contributors regarding “grandmothers.” Knowledge simply lets everyone and their grandmother edit an article, most of them unqualified to do so. Knowledge contributors are an unreliable source of credible information and therefore, Knowledge is unreliable and not noteworthy enough to be a reference regarding information about our family. E) Please delete ALL articles regarding our famous family.LisaDMillerHackett (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in responding to the majority of your comments, which largely misinterpret or ignore completely the points I made, but I will say that "everybody and his Grandma" is not intended to be any kind of attack or personal comment, rather that it is a common phrase where I am from which simply means to "a lot of people". As I have already said, if you cool it with the agressive behaviour and stop taking this personally, read some of the pages you have been pointed to instead of googling how bad Knowledge is, you might that you will get more assistance--Jac16888 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NOTPROMOTION. The sources seem to indicate that it's WP:TOOSOON. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete as I think that Trevj hit the nail on the head with WP:TOOSOON. Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment - There is no question that this kid's family is famous (I loved the late comedian Buddy Hackett, FWIW), and that many of the said members are notable. I'm not sure about this kid, however. I recall that in the past we have tended to delete the articles of child performing artists of marginal notability. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Addis Sheraton Shopping Center

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

Unverifable (patently false, in fact), orphan, not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Simfan34 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Orphan is not a valid criteria for deletion and this third-party source says "Some of the larger hotels complexes in Ethiopia's proud capital of Addis Ababa also have their own small shopping arcades, including the Addis Sheraton Shopping Centre." so it's neither "unverifiable" nor, as the nominator asserts, "patently false". Now as to notability I have my doubts but without further research I cannot make an informed decision. - Dravecky (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 05:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable, not sure if it's a real place, or just an association of the shopping center with Sheraton. Caffeyw (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Superman7515 (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG. Seems to be a real place but not notable. No sourced content worth considering merging anywhere, unlikely search term. -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete as this does in fact fail WP:GNG. Technical 13 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nestor Velazquez

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

fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - no coverage found for this person in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO at this time. Gong show 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
NOTE I removed the Early Life and Personal Life sections as a copyright violation of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2374564/bio - see talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete, claims of notability barely prevent A7 but are clearly far short of the mark for WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete and redirect to WAMP. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

EasyPHP

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

Improper restoration of article: easily qualifies as G4, as all the problems that were initially noted in Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Comparison of WAMPs (2nd nomination) still exist. Since some take an unnecessarily literal view of G4, it seems that we will have to have to repeat the AFD discussion.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete — I found a single mention in google scholar and several mentions in a couple of O'Reilly Media books, but there's just not enough there to build an article. Lots of pointers on how to install and use the software, but nothing discussing the software proper (particularly no reviews). In my opinion, doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Single mention? I see 479 on GScholar. It's not really a software, it's a local-host development platform which includes pre-configured softwares (Apache, Phpmyadmin & MySQL), I guess the proper technical term for this is Solution stack. Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a poor choice of words on my part. I'm guessing that I meant a single paper that I could classify as "used" instead of "mentioned", but even that's not clear. Thanks for pointing that out; I'll definitely be more careful (and give links) in the future. That said, I'm still not seeing the kind of reviews and articles discussing EasyPHP that we might hang an article on. If you have pointers to those I'll definitely reconsider my !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete as per failing WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT; there simply isn't enough coverage to keep the article. The fact the article was written from scratch is enough for it to be "substantially different" and not G4-worthy, regardless of concerns in the prior AfD. Particularly as at least two admins have expressed the view that it is different enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete (but not G4). It needs to demonstrate notability. So far it is failing to do so. Four sources, and none of them even in English? That's a product that's having to scrape the barrel pretty hard. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement on English Wiki for references to be in English.--Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - same as last time, sources do not demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep (failing that, Redirect to WAMP) at 422 hits on G Books, 479 on GScholar & 560,000 hits on Google it easily passes WP:GNG IMO. Also note that one of its versions has been downloaded some 225,000 times on Cnet further indicative of popularity. Additionally, per WP:Otherstuffexists, there is no reason to have articles on the Linux & MAC equivalents (cf. MAMP, DAMP (software bundle), Bitnami, Apache2Triad) and ignore EasyPHP being the popular Windows equivalent. It will be really absurd of Knowledge to have a red link for something as popular. (note the number of people looking for it even as it has been deleted )--Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is to be redirected, then a merge to phpMyAdmin would seem more appropriate.

LAMP is commonplace, WAMP almost as much so. EasyPHP is (AIUI) no more than a bundle of WAMP with added PhpMyAdmin. Notability for a bundle is difficult. One has to show that not only are the components notable (we surely agree here that they are), but that they resultant bundle specifically has gained some interest from independent sources. I'm not seeing this. As the only vaguely interesting feature to this WAMP bundle is the inclusion of PhpMyAdmin (not generally seen as an essential part of WAMP), then that's a better place to hold this content.

Also an article to hold some encyclopedic content. This article is still no more than its See also list. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

GHITS are not any evidence of notability, Tachfin. There are 254,000 hits on my username, for example. "EasyPHP" is almost certainly going to turn up lots of "PHP made easy" type how-to guides, for example. Also, WP:OSE is an argument to avoid, not one to use. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Lukeno94 I doubt your username returns any hits on Gbooks/Gscholar. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF ≠ WP:Otherstuffexists --Tachfin (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

3 hits on Gbooks, 1 or two on Gscholar, so yes, it does. And your argument will be based on a lot of "PHP made easy", or "easy PHP"-type results, not EasyPHP, for the most part. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I can buy that references are mostly in French because this is a "francophone website", according to the last reference (whatever that means for software, presumably that documentation is mostly in French or something like that). But I don't think those sources confer enough notability for Knowledge. Coverage is brief, and look at what else is the table for the last source phpindex.com, phpfrance.com etc. These may be worth a mention in the articles on PHP etc. as the favorite forums or distributions in a given country, but aren't notable enough for stand-alone pages. The first book, which has a couple of pages about it is really a bottom-feeder publication; 90% of that is screenshots of the installer at every step. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to WAMP seems reasonable to me as I can see this as a search term (stats.grok.se indicates "EasyPHP has been viewed 5037 times in the last 90 days."). Technical 13 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 02:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

RJ NILANJAN

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

fails WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath 08:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete: I'm not aware of any notability being generated from DJing on a radio station whilst gaining little other coverage. The article is an utter mess, although a massive trout goes out to those who spammed TEN tags for improvement into the top, without attempting to improve some of the issues themselves (like the bare refs.) Even if this guy IS notable, TNT it and start from scratch. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've done a small amount of basic cleanup and wikification. Should this article survive the process, moving to "RJ Nilanjan" instead of the all-caps name is strongly recommended. - Dravecky (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet GNG.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)