Knowledge

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster _talk 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hostel (2014 Flim) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There's no indication of notability, and it has no sources (and I couldn't find any on Google). IagoQnsi (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - editor has added other non-existent flims, er, films (I just flagged Scary Movie 6 as a hoax). --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Pretty clearly seems to be a hoax/joke article. It was non-blatant enough that I hesitated to use CSD, but with no sources to be found and its humorous name and description, I think it is conclusively fake. IagoQnsi (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion is rather evenly divided between a merge and article retention. A merge discussion and discussion about potential merge targets can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 03:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft warning paint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Is this topic too narrow to be credible?

It's not a paint (and this article isn't structured as our colour shade and hue articles are). It's not a distinctive pattern. It's not lighting, or the overall distinction of hazard marking - the article limits itself to paint alone.

Is there enough left to justify an article? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rename to something like "Aircraft hazard marking and lighting" if there is not an equivalent article already. This would be a notable topic. BayShrimp (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Well, then why don`t we just make a page and merge every article into it? Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 19:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Merge. The topic is pretty narrow. I couldn't even find anything to merge it into except for perhaps Warning system (which, at the time of writing, was a list of links with a single source). So, failing that, merge into Warning system. APerson (talk!) 01:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge as above, topic is too narrow to sustain an article in its own right. Merge into Warning system. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  Well, it doesn't make sense to have it Merged with Warning paint as it is a list of links. What about merging Aircraft warning paint and Aircraft warning lights into a article with the name like Aircraft warning system? Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'd support a merge, but as a section under Aircraft warning lights, as the clearest commonname. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  I am not going to beg that my article not be deleted, or rip peoples heads off or Get on the phone with my lawyer over this, but how does Aircraft warning lights effectively talk about an entirely different system? These 2 pages are talking about totally different systems and the only similarity is that they both are used to identify tall objects. That kind of defeats the purpose of merging it with Aircraft warning lights.... Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 17:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  I agree with Happy Attack Dog in that Aircraft warning lights is not a good merge; however, it should definitely be merged into an article such as Warning system. APerson (talk!) 22:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 23:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge is right, I just don't know where to. Aircraft hazard marking and lighting would be fine but is a red link, Warning system is a bit unspecific but will do if there's nothing else I suppose. Lankiveil 23:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
• Keep The main thing the article needed was a good picture so I have added one. The scope of the topic seems quite clear and straightforward. Any second-guessing is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Now that the image clarifies the subject I have changed my !vote - sources support stub level. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Although notable, the subject is obscure and this is probably just one of those articles that is never going to be very large. I'd like another source or two. But in this case they might be harder to come by. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge with Aircraft warning lights and rename. or Keep - I'd imagine any pilot would say it is notable. There has to be sources, if looked for hard enough. There are also red colored spheres to mark power lines, so helicopters won't run into them. It could be renamed to Aircraft hazard marking and lighting, but a Windsock doesn't necessarily fall into hazard markings. Leave Navigation light as it is. - Sidelight12 03:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The rationale to keep this article isn't convincing. The content of the article is really about MMR vaccine, not the subject of the biography. If there is consensus to do so, the content can be added to MMR vaccine where it would be more appropriate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC) -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Person is notable for only one event. M. Caecilius (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete -- In the absence of other information about work (and I couldn't find any), I agree completely with the nominator. Could redirect to MMR Vaccine, however. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Weak keep. He has excellent citations on GS, but they stop prematurely. One can guess why. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 23:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Per Xxanthippe, his total citations are quite high (686 by my count) although h-index is low. In combination with the one event, I think this might just get him over the line. However, it is unclear what he's doing now. -- 101.117.56.61 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Does not appear to meet gng. Only independent sources that comes up on google are merely passing mentions that you would expect for a local media personality. And the emmy's mentioned are firstly regional, not national awards and secondly are not awards awarded to the subject of the article, but instead awarded to the station for stories he was involved in covering. John from Idegon (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 21:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Awards are minor and not directly to the subject of the article. Sources fail WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Article has no citations, questionable notability and just lacks meat. Zero Serenity (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 21:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, reference for being a daily newspaper is added, daily print commercial newspapers are notable enough. --Soman (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER. Sole cited source does not ring the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Alured Faunce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An autobiography that doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC as far as I am aware. Faunce created the article as Fauncet (talk · contribs) before abandoning the account and moving to NimbusWeb (talk · contribs). —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Subject might be notable but the sources are mostly print and therefor cannot be easily verified. Normally a presumption of good faith would attach but in this case there is overwhelming evidence that the article is the autobiography of a naked COI. Under the circumstances I think in the interest of encyclopedic integrity the best course of action is to blow it up and start over with a non-COI editor. Maybe run the next version through AfC? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Pilgrims in medicine, currently in more than 750 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Not as strong in terms of GS cites. I agree with Ad Orientem though, and reduced the article to a stub. While COI is not a reason for deletion, the article shoud grow COI-free.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  Is it a significant impact or is he just really full of himself?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. In particular, WP:AUTHOR asks for multiple published reviews of the author's books, not just library holdings. I searched but only found self-published ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete WP:GNG and WP:BIO fail. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 14:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex Bruce (law professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC as far as I can tell. Also, authored by NimbusWeb who appears to have a conflict of interest. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Low citation impact on GS. Most widely held book in libraries, Restrictive trade practices law in Australia, currently in less than 60 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. News coverage is promising but still a bit limited. Unless I am missing something, the subject seems to be well on his way to achieving WP notability; but not yet - article created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to sustainable development. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 03:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The entirety of the article just reads as a promotional work regarding the research of Bryan Furnass and Thomas Faunce on this neologism that only these people seem to use. In the only source where Faunce is not a major author, "Sustainocene" is used once. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to note that primary author NimbusWeb (talk · contribs) is in fact Thomas Faunce, as evidenced by this photo he uploaded to the Commons in the past. So on top of everything, we have a major conflict of interest on this and several other articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a ANI discussion about the scope of the article, see here. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Where do you think I found it? Being on ANI does not prevent this page from being deleted for being a massive puff piece on a word that the author made up in academia and is trying to use Knowledge as a venue for further thought.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why this article shouldn't be kept(without the current bias), or alternatively an article is required to cover the topic of "post carbon world". Prokaryotes (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Sustainocene" is a word made up by two researchers. If you can find a wider usage stemming from their coining of the term then it has some merit. Otherwise, we should have been rid of this and NimbusWeb's semi-transparent soapboxing for years.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the header part of my ANI report, a quick way is to look up his paper and slide (linked over there). The name was coined by Brian Furnass, and Nocera/Faunce hijacked the term to promote their opinion how a sustainable world could be accomplished. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

All I've gathered is that Faunce (NimbusWeb) is using this page, and others to promote his idealogy and research on Knowledge, so we could probably be without this neologism that no one uses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete too soon I would love to read an article about the Sustainocene because I think it is a valuable concept. However, none of the references I could find to it were in reliable sources independent from the initiators of the concept. When it has been the subject of major magazine/journal articles, or as a subject in somebody else's book, then it could be added to Knowledge. If those already exist, please post references to them so we can evaluate them. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• No final opinion Though besides wasting a few hours in the afford to make the scope sound (For reference see my final edit here), i have no general opinion on a deletion of the page. However, my main interest is to have an article which covers the supposed "Post carbon world", eg. a sustainable world which adapts and mitigates in face of global warming and environmental destruction. In relation to the current Anthropocene, the name Sustainocene describes the notion of sustainability, it's a good name for this possible future epoch. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  You should really read up on our notability guidelines and policies rather than voice your personal opinions on the possible future merits of this term devoid of NimbusWeb/Faunce's distortion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm confident that the topic meets notability guidelines, see the term at Google scholar has 480 entries] on "post carbon world" or this article Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World. Often different terms are used to outline a post carbon world, many reports assess adaptation options, such as the IPCC AR5 report or various UN reports on sustainability. A broad principle can be found at Sustainable development. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps "post-carbon world" is a notable term. "Sustainocene" is not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  Ok, maybe i create that article later when i have enough data. Btw, thanks for your afford to help sort this out. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Re-direct to sustainable development. Schreiber bike described the situation pretty well. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good compromise. prokaryotes (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to sustainable development per Orser67. Beagel (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  This isn't a valid search term to turn this into a redirect. No one uses "Sustainocene" other than the author of the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are 11 Google Scholar cites, with the first paper by B. Furnass, who coined the term. There is at least 1 book on Amazon on the subject (dind't looked into the particular content). But the term got "hi-jacked" very early by the AP fuel guys (and the 1 project heavily promoted has been abandoned ), except for Faunce who still promotes his research. Further it appears that Furnass had a false impression about the technology and the motives of Faunce & Co., when responding to a question at the end of a podcast (link), and said that he knows nothing about artificial photosynthesis. prokaryotes (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to sustainable development; @Ryulong, your argument appears to be based on the reasonable concern in WP:NEOLOGISM that we shouldn't be used as a platform to foster the popularity of terms. If the word had never appeared in the professional literature, I would probably agree with you. But it did pass its review process and got published, so I don't see a big abuse-of-process problem using a redirect on the term. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect Cancelled my Delete above. I see no problem with a redirect. SchreiberBike talk 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Retain I am posting this message on behalf of Bryan Furnass: "Dear Tom. I propose to mount a defence of continued inclusion, not deletion, of my neologism 'Sustainocene' in Knowledge, but I cannot find a way to do so through the Knowledge website. The first entry supporting deletion was that this was for self-promotion and the word not widespread in the scientific literature. But so was Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen's unfamiliar neologism in 2000 for naming the present era the 'Anthropocene' as being more appropriate than the relatively stable 'Holocene' era (the change still being officially considered by the Geological Society in London). I do not agree with one of the suggestions in Knowledge that sustainable development would be more suitable, since this implies the economic and population growth which are inimical to the proposed 'Sustainocene' era which has to do with the (improbable) survival of our own and many other species into the next century. Your artificial photosynthesis is entirely in keeping with James Hudson's declaration that we must move from a carbon economy to a photon economy and this is supported by Dan Nocera and yourself, for scientific, not self-promotional reasons. I think the word 'Sustainocne' should be made sustainable to alert all and sundry to the crisis we face. I'm virtually computer illiterate, so can you please show me what buttons to press to communicate with the Knowledge entry decision-makers. Kindest regards to you all Bryan Furnass. Tom Faunce.

@Bryan, (A) You have falsely assumed that each-and-every theory of sustainable development necessarily includes ongoing economic and population growth. That's false and our article on the subject probably needs to explore that notion more than it does. But already, the article talks of only using resources at no more than the rate of replenishment, which implies a steady (or falling) population and a steady-state economy. (B) The neologism "anthropocene" was also challenged here until a significant number of diverse RSs were mentioning it. Your word might fly on the wings of wikipedia. Just not yet. We're here to report after you've convinced lots of others, not to recruit them for you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I do not see why this person is notable. It is not clear from the text, and there are no sources showing the notability. Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Probably could have been deleted as unambiguous promotion per G-11 but since it's here... there is no evidence of notability. Subject fails WP:BASIC and sources generally fail WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Does not meet the general notability requirement or its more specialized version. Pichpich (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete No reliable source found. Only self published sources such as Facebook and few you tube videos are available. Not notable A.Minkowiski 20:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The reason this page was updated is because a produced and distributed film leads to a blank Wiki page with the name Daniel Twyman, so content with NO Links included, only info that can be verified authentic if checked, was added. All content can be verified as it relates to published and copywrited films and television as is seen on thousands of other accepted Wiki pages. There is no legit reason to delete this content. If links to reliable sources are needed, then please request updates to the page rather than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actormandan (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC) (The preceding comment was moved by Pichpich to preserve the format of the debate)
• Delete. Roles to date to not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm not finding independent coverage to show that the topic meets WP:GNG.  Gongshow   talk 02:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Subject fails WP:BLP which is an automatic delete unless an RS source is found. A Google search found nothing that even came close to ringing the notability bell. Subject thus fails WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR and WP:V. That's four strikes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

DBMail IMAP and POP3 server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No proof it's notable. Reads like advert. OKNoah (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 11. —cyberbot I _Online 19:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Naked WP:SPAM. Tagging CSD per G-11. Sources hugely fail WP:RS No evidence of notability per WP:PRODUCT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Blue Angel (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete the subject is not notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete BLPs require much better sourcing then this. Spartaz 21:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Lacks substantial RS coverage to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - encyclopedic porn star. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Encyclopedic how? Where is the non-trivial reliable source coverage? Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE comes under arguments to avoid. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for porn actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Apparent sock !votes ignored.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. References are listings or trivial mentions. Nothing substantial about the company. Article borders on advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Every effort must be respected. Giving the space for improvement is the essence of a "free" internet. Destruction is easy, but to create something is much more difficult. Various aspects should be supported, but to the point where it does not threaten the integrity of the other. Now let's see some arguments.

• There are scores of incomplete STUB article of the same category and of lesser value that are still live and fine!

• https://en.wikipedia.org/CPG_Corporation
• https://en.wikipedia.org/I_Nuovi_Professional
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Sheng_Siong

Keep Article Lvlada (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Nothing of the above supports why - according to Knowledge guidelines - this article should be included. Knowledge is not a "free" advertising site or a place to post non-notable companies. Because other stuff exists is not a reason to allow something that fails to meet Knowledge criteria to survive review. Unfortunately your opinion does not match Knowledge guidelines for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment- Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Mr. Audergon, the President of Crossinvest Asia who is also co-founder and vice-president of the Association of Independent Asset Managers (Singapore) AIAM, has won the "Outstanding Young Private Bankers 2011" award by Private Banker International." The Knowledge policies and its interpretations should apply the same to all articles without discrimination. Interpretation of Knowledge guidelines is something which I warned from the start. Everything in life is marketing and presentation of yourself to others, as this knowledge representation of Knowledge policies.Lvlada (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - From the same article... An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Knowledge should not have an article on it. Additionally, notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I understand the effort to prevent the abuse of Knowledge but looking the evidence, stub and time difference someone might get the wrong impression about the different uses of Knowledge's policies. I agree if it's a rule for everyone and as such is applied at all times.Lvlada (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Although always to be desired, uniform application of Wiki rules and standards, or the lack thereof, is not an admissible argument in AfD discussions. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a nice, informative article. I really appreciate it and there is room for improvement also. This should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riratul (talk • contribs) — Riratul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment-please cite the Knowledge guideline that supports the notability of the article. reddogsix (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply " Just in case you did not pay attention, there were a notice at the top of the original article stating this: "This Singaporean corporation or company article is a stub. You can help Knowledge by expanding it." I found this information in the history of the article. It seems like you "intentionally" deleted it. In case you don't know what a stub article is, read carefully this Knowledge page. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Stub This should solve this issue definitively. Thank you. Riratul

Indeed. I particularly found the following most helpful... "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." It is becoming increasingly clear that your defense of the article is untenable and without any basis in Knowledge policy. On a side note, although it may not be your intention, some of your comments are coming across as snarky and condescending. Just saying... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence provided, nor could I find, evidence that this organization meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. What's out there is a bunch of references to this company regarding a single employee, none of which provides signficant coverage (that I could find) of the corporation. Editors who are unhappy with Knowledge's policies and guidelines regarding notability and article retention are encouraged to take up those discussionsa the Village Pump and/or the talk page of the relevant policy, we are unlikely to gain consensus for a wholesale rewrite of Knowledge policy in this localized discussion. --j⚛e decker 22:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability per WP:CORP Sources generally fail RS or are trivial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Article - It will be a good idea to ask the creator to provide further evidence of notability. Expansion is the very definition of a stub article. I would rather have this article kept and expanded. • Qasim900 (talk)
• Delete - non-notable per WP:CORP, stubbiness has nothing to do with it, you can have a very good stub or a very bad long article. It is the content that is important.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, rather than speedy G5. See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Thesoundkillers. Ruby Murray 16:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an article created by a blocked editor in defiance of a block. I am aware that closing an AfD that one has already participated in is not normally acceptable, but this seems an occasion when WP:IAR applies. If anyone disagrees, please reopen it, and no doubt someone else will make the same closure. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable character that seems to be in-world of some piece of fiction, but who knows? Individual characters from this book do not have individual notability DP 18:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep — It is a character from the book and the series Maya the Bee. It is much known.--Toмa646 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That it exists does not make it notable .. we have stringent notability requirements on the English Knowledge DP 18:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

How many resources are required?--Toмa646 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The significance of the article also indicates that there is the Czech Knowledge.--Дед Мороз (Toмa646) (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence at all of satisfying Knowledge's notability guidelines. (Also, if the article is kept, it will need a total rewrite from scratch, for several reasons, including the fact that it is written using English words, but those words are not fitted together into English sentences, making parts of the article totally incomprehensible.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I have now discovered why the article is in such an appalling attempt at English. I put the lead of the Czech Knowledge article into Google translate, and what I got out was word for word the lead of the English article. As well as explaining the ridiculous "English", that means that the article is a copyright infringement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. although changes to article are appreciated, references appear to fail CORPDEPTH and hence CORP Tawker (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Borderline A7. Claim to notability is that the business' site ranks in the top 10,000 for internet traffic. Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP. Tried to find reliable sourcing and coverage, but apparently none exist. EBstrunk18 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Source hugely fail WP:RS. Just another WP:PROMO piece. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. It's just an ad. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Changes were made to article, including additional citations and neutral language. --Kdesmit (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for cleaning up the obvious WP:PROMO and adding the sources. But I still think it falls short of ringing the WP:CORP bell. There are still only two sources that I would label as RS and both of those provide only tangential coverage of the business. They are primarily concerned with the the added library service. My !vote is regrettably still to delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Hi Kdesmit! I noticed you added a lot of references to the article from reliable, third party sources today; however, you might want to review WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage in your sources seems to be trivial/incidental statements that LawDepot offers different kinds of documents/products. I also noticed that you've only made edits on LawDepot's page, and I do assume good faith, but for what it's worth, you might want to also review WP:COI. EBstrunk18 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog 18:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener 13:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 02:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP with heavy edits by someone with clear WP:COI and promotion. IMDB cannot be used as a sole source DP 16:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 11. —cyberbot I _Online 17:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Just not finding sufficient coverage. I'm siding, barely, with retention for one of Fulle's films, but even the articles about Love 101 don't do anything more than name-drop Fulle (if that). Especially in light of the more stringent expectations for sourcing BLP articles, I don't see any other option here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. I've found just enough to where we could justify keeping the article, although I would suggest that multiple people keep the page on their watchlists to prevent further WP:PUFFERY. I've removed a lot of the article that was unsourced, as well as various different credits and whatnot, as we typically don't list every advert or promo spot that someone does for a company. It's kind of taken for granted that any given production company will have multiple, multiple minor credits to their name that go largely unnoticed by the general public. We generally just list the stuff that's on IMDb and/or have a select filmography. Adding everything that you've ever done (speaking directly to the COI editor) just makes it look promotional- which is something that you should do on your own website, not Knowledge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: I added a bit to the lede and some sources, and there's plenty more references out there. Definitely WP:NOTABLE. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Love 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film, as per WP:NFILM. Sole ref's are unacceptable as singular ref's (imdb/allmovie) DP 16:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Maybe, if you squint a little, meets the requirement of two reviews by recognized sources. I am not extremely convinced that EFilmCritic (aka Hollywood Bitchslap) represents a reliable source; on the other hand, Rotten Tomatoes counts them a source of critic reviews (and includes this one), so... On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with the A.V. Club. If you accept EFilmCritic, that's the standard, strictly speaking. If you don't, well, there's a real review in the Topeka Capital-Journal. That's unquestionably a reliable source, but whether it has the gravitas to count for WP:NFILM is sort of another question. On the whole, I think I'd count the Topeka newspaper review, punt on the EFilmCritic reliability, and retain the article. Barely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• If it helps you any, I can vouch for the guy that did the review as it's most likely that they have the page listed more because of the name of the reviewer than the actual review site. Weinberg is the review critic for FearNet and posted through EFC before becoming FN's full-time reviewer. He's not really a fly by night type of guy, FWIW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I've found enough to justify an article for this film, although I so far am not as optimistic for the other ones. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Three Days (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film as per WP:NFILM DP 16:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Unlike Love 101, this doesn't appear to have ever gotten a release. I can't find any reviews in reliable media, or any other significant coverage, really. Was screened at a couple film festivals, but didn't win awards or attract sufficient attention to generate sources. If Fulle's article were to be kept, I'd support a redirect there instead, but I don't think that's particularly likely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to Adrian_Fulle#Film. I think I've found just enough to merit a page for Fulle, but not enough to really justify an article for this film specifically. The coverage is just too light. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find hardly any sources about this at all (although something migh't've been hiding in all the "Three Days Later", "Jane's Addiction: Three Days Later", etc). If User:Tokyogirl79 can add some info in the page on Adrian Fulle (or Mark DeCarlo if Fulle's article ends up deleted), then that should be enough for this. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

No references to confirm only claim to notability (i.e. nothing to show it actually WON any notable awards) DP 16:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete You'd think winning an award at TIFF would bring a ton of results, even for a short film, but this doesn't bring back anything. Lugnuts 18:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't even find anything substantive about its performance at TIFF. Their list of past awards doesn't list either this film nor anything called "audience favorite". I suspect that was a non-award level of recognition. Nor can I find anything substantive in reliable sources otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Mostly unsourced material, failing WP:NFILMS. ///EuroCarGT 02:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to Adrian_Fulle#Film. I found enough to salvage the director's article, but not enough really to justify an article on each of his films. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Alertjean/Indian general election 2014 results. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 03:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian general election 2014 results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I had initially redirected tehe page with the reason that there is no content yet and it can instead be created in someone's sandbox. It was then reopened saying "Note: This is an ongoing election. Feel free to add results/status of other states and cumulative status from all states." In this case, the ongoing part is listed in Indian general election, 2014. As such, since we are more than one month away from having any result whatsoever, i am proposing this for deletion in the interim as there is no content to add for a month. It can then be recreated on 16 May or later.
This is not to mention its arbitrary parties being listed.Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Move to user namespace for now, to move back after results start coming out. --Soman (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Move a little WP:TOOSOON, but once the results actually happen, move it back. Lugnuts 17:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with both above, as suggestedLihaas (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

World's Best Donuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's just a donut shop! Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

delete per nom, its also wholly uncited (except the mere mentions which is not notable)Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in book and news sources. Source examples include:

• National Public Radio
• Tastes of Minnesota: A Food Lover's Tour.
• Roadfood: The Coast-to-Coast Guide to 900 of the Best Barbecue Joints ....
• Minneapolis-St. Paul: 25 Weekend Getaways in and Around the Twin Cities
• Star Tribune
• The New York Times (two short paragraphs).

 – NorthAmerica 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs some work but there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources including here noting lines out the door and various of their significant offerenings. Clearly this business has been identified as a significant culinary establishment in the great state of Minnesota. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Airship Industries.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

American Skyship Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a non-existent factory for a non-existent product, full of WP:CRYSTAL ideas. It appears to be a company that duped a small town, then didn't do squat afterwards. If this was intended to be a spinoff of Wren Skyships, then it's not a viable content fork on its own. Most references aren't about this company, but about Wren, Airships as a whole, and local news about the potential way back when that didn't pan out. DP 16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge content with Airship Industries where the whole sorry saga of Wren and its associated companies is addressed. To be fair to the article creator (now indef blocked), the whole point of the article was to document the scam (as the only notable thing in the entire episode), and I can buy that. There is a little meat to this effect and it would sit well enough in the Wren saga. If the page can remain as a redirect rather than get deleted, well and good. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect, as noted above. I'm not confident how much of this should be merged per se; much is uncited, cited to unreliable sources (the Mahoningvalley source is a forum), cited to unverifiable sources (I can't find that Rimel source in any form, and "Touche-Ross Report" does not a reference make), or ultimately simply trivial (like the one-sentence news blurb on The Vindicator website). Regardless, the Flight International refs are reasonable, and there is something to say about all of this ... but that's part of a larger topic rather than here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect what little concrete infomation there is to Airship IndustriesTheLongTone (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - in the absence of an article on Major M. Wren / Thermo-skyships, merge/redirect to the Airships Industries article seems reasonable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Airship Industries. NorthAmerica 01:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No point in dragging this out longer. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Our Knowledge colleague and former WMF employee Sarah Stierch doesn't meet our notability threshold. WP:BASIC states that:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

When it comes to direct coverage of her herself, the news sources given in the article largely comprise articles about Knowledge's gender gap, in which she features in an interview context and is given a brief biographical outline - these include the Independent and Women's eNews articles. The TechRepublic and Daily Dot articles are simply interviews. There's an Indianapolis Star article from 2001 about her early career, which I can't assess as it's paywalled, but it wouldn't be sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Apart from those, there are citations to her own website and a WMF blog post, which are obviously not independent.

The remaining three news sources relate to her departure from the WMF, and it's starting to look like a WP:BLP1E issue. If that hadn't happened, would she be notable by our standards? I don't believe so. This article really only exists as a Wikiedian insider topic. — Scott • talk 15:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: I think we must be particularly strict when we write articles about ourselves. The version that I felt was most in compliance with my (strict) reading of the BLP and sourcing policies was . I don't claim to be an authority over English Knowledge BLP policies though. --Nemo 18:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - the subject has said they would welcome the article to be deleted, () and in this instance, since it is focused on a negative event (being fired from work) and she hasn't made a concerted effort to be notable outside of the Knowledge project itself, I think we can be within policy to nuke it. Ritchie333 20:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per Sarah's request. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Effectively argued from several perspectives FeatherPluma (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per Sarahs request. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as she'd agreed on it. ///EuroCarGT 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, though from what I can see, Sarah hasn't requested deletion, she's simply saying she won't miss the article if it goes. Though she's been covered by the UK Independent it tends to be in passing, or wholly negative about her recent dismissal. Wikipedians will have a distorted view of her promininence and, if she was a 'normal' punter, I fully expect this would be an uncontroversial deletion. Sionk (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per subject's stated preference (not insistence), and due to her marginal notability per our guidelines.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment Based on the unanimous views of the numerous commenting editors, with which I concur, might this not be an appropriate candidate for a speedy close? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, relative to . NorthAmerica 06:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete — Ultimately, I agree with everything outlined in the above nomination by Scott. Sarah Stierch is an indispensible asset to Knowledge and all it stands for, but her notability as an individual is very borderline in the grander scheme of things. As with everyone else, what tips the scales for me is her expressed preference for deletion. This is the kind of case that reminds us why we have the BLPRD clause in the first place: not everyone who's done something worthwhile needs to have their life publicised on Knowledge, especially not if they don't want it to be. Kurtis 07:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per the stated preference of the subject and lack of any pressing reasons to keep this. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think any admin would be perfectly within their rights to delete this per WP:SNOW given the above comments. Ritchie333 11:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable, there is no in depth coverage of this person. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - no coverage FeatherPluma (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 12:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog 18:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Pure unsourced original research, also fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Created eight days too late for April Fools. The first Google hits for European Classic are Barcelona–Manchester United, Benfica–Barcelona, Arsenal–Barcelona and Chelsea–Liverpool. Number 57 14:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Sounds like a neologism invented by the article creator. No evidence that matches between Real Madrid and Bayern Munich are ever referred to as "European Classic" unless something remarkable happens in an individual game that would make it a classic. – PeeJay 14:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Pure WP:OR. Fenix down (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - totally made-up, nobody calls matches between these teams "the European classic" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - as above, this is not actually a thing. GiantSnowman 19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep but rename - I think this rivality is pronounced enough to be mentioned in wikipedia. However, the term European Classic should not be used. I think FC Bayern Munich–Real Madrid C. F. rivalry is a more appropriate solution. • ChryZ MUC 13:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChryZ MUC (talk • contribs)
• Delete – most arguments have already been mentioned: neologism, original research, notability. The article attempts to justify the existence of a rivalry on statistics alone without thought for context, which is wholly insufficient to judge the notability of a rivalry. Aspirex (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was procedural close - wrong venue. Feel free to take this to WP:MFD. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 13:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mkallel/Easycwmp (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Submitted three times and has never made changes to address referencing and notability issues. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep - the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommended that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not seeing much notability/media notice here for this singer/songwriter. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Subject authored and sang a charting single. #19 on Australia's Hot 100 for 2010 -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Article has been expanded with sources that now show:

1. 1. One of her works was listed on a national (international?) poll by listeners of radio station Triple J. Note, Ad Orientem, this is not a charting single.
   2. As well as the above, other works by the artist have been played on the same network.
   3. Another work was used for a UK TV show.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination. Looks good now. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SNOW Keep - Nominated without a shred of research. AFD is not cleanup. - hahnchen 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The text is highly promotional of her and her company, the supposed list of her clients is referenced to her own website and a deadlink. Most of the text is unsourced, and the references seemed designed to promote rather than verify. MSG's daughter does not inherit her notability. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I added sourced to her clientele list so it's not just sourced to her own website and shortened that section. I think people can get the idea that she's a top celebrity designer without a list of 20 people. Everything else looks well sourced to me. I'm not seeing any additional problems with the article. Bali88 (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Some of the current text is promotional but she is a famous designer. Per Google, 4,700 hits in The New York Times alone; 1,235 hits at HighBeam Research including profiles in Newsweek , WWD ,Philippine media such as ; famous enough to be listed in the "celebrities" lists in almanacs and news guides. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Not my cup of tea but does meet criteria. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per the above sources; other coverage found includes CNN and LA Times.  Gongshow   talk 02:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm surprised that this is up for nomination. She is a very famous fashion designer. Perhaps the article needs to be worked on, but Lhuillier is way more notable that most folks on wikipedia. I'm not even super into fashion and I've heard of her. Btw, who is MSG and who is this person's daughter? Bali88 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - A lot of coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 03:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Absolutely ridiculous nomination. Did the nominator even do any basic searches before nominating? Mabalu (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and close nomination - this is a waste of time.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The post-nomination improvements in sourcing done to the article by David Gerard have established that the subject passes at least one criteria of WP:NBAND. §FreeRangeFrog 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

XPQ-21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hold off a tick please - I just saw this morning how terrible this was and have asked people I know for help with sources. They're actually pretty notable per band requirements, but if I didn't already know that myself I'd have PRODed this at the least - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Article has been tagged since 2012 as lacking reliable references and has only had "references" to the band itself and the band's facebook. If we can't get reliable sources for a request in 2 years, what reasonable good faith should we extend that we'll see reliable sources in the next 7 days? This article has been around since 2004 in relatively the same state so this is very much a poster child for "Improving wikipedia by cutting away the chaff". Hasteur (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Hasteur: Is your question here answered somewhat? - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @Davig Gerard: If meeting notability is slaping a bunch of discogs links into a artist's page then I weep for the vast hordes of pittifully sourced pages that are in namespace. You should know better! Discogs only provides data dumps of existance, not notability. Facebook pages are never reliable sources. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, when I wrote it (pretty much as-is), it was early days and we had a lot of articles about this good ... I'd forgotten I was actually the one to write it. I've dredged up sources and will be getting to work on the text later - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Four albums, three of which were on third-party labels. Could reasonably add the Jeyenne solo discography as well. Any better? More to come - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

David -- could you identify which of those articles you believe are written in RSs? And which of those labels are notable labels?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Side-Line's a proper music magazine - note print cite. I'm pretty sure the labels qualify as indies with more than one band that would pass NBAND, I'll dredge through in due course - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Terrorverlag I need to investigate as to whether it passes to fully trustworthy RS standard. Brutal Resonance stands a chance too. They looked reasonable for the level of sourcing I'm using them for here - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've also asked on the XPQ-21 Facebook, noting precisely the sort of thing we'd need in sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• • David, this looks considerably better (and would certainly survive CSD A7 now). However, we need publication info regarding Terrorverlag (date, link if online, etc.) rather than the direct quote and name of the publication only. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

    Terrorverlag is already in the references list - look above that one. There's probably a better way to do that - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

    What about Terrorverlag as a named reference, and the original German as a footnote using {{efn}}? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

    There's probably a better way 's true. I don't know my way around the reference footnote templates, feel free - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Creator note: Passes WP:NBAND - 1. Substantial coverage in proper third-party music press. 2. Three songs in Deutsche Alternative Charts. (Yes, the DAC is named in English.) 5. Their labels also have other DAC-charting bands to their credit. Collecting sources for 4. (they tour incessantly) - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep based on all the new sources added in the last few days, and the fact that multiple songs have charted. —Torchiest _edits 13:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Neuro (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable video game. Can find no mentions in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Nor does it satisfy the essay Knowledge:Notability (video games). The only references are to a blog and a promotional interview. Furthermore the game's developer is redlinked and I can find no indication it is notable either. BethNaught (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see enough coverage in a WP:VG/RS custom Google search. If there are Russian-language sources that can establish notability, then the article can be recreated (with proper citations). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep What avenue did you take to research this article's notability? With a name as common as Neuro, it could be difficult to find the game made in 2006, which appears to be from a Russian company. Saying an article is sounds like an essay is a request for clean up not deletion. From what I am seeing this is a published game and does pass the WP:GNG requirements for video games. Sources IGN, IGN Interview, Gamespot, and there are more. You'll find nothing if search Neuro video game, however if you search Neuro Revolt Games, then you'll scratch the surface. Valoem 09:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I saw those hits. However, they don't demonstrate notability. The GameSpot and first IGN sources do nothing but provide evidence that it exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The game was only released in Russia, which means that most reviews and valid sources are in Russian. That said, to prove my point, I found this and this using MobyGames. The first link showed me that the publisher's name in Russian is "Руссобит-М", so I did a Google search using the terms "Neuro" and "Руссобит-М" and got this: , , , , . I also did a Google search using "Neuro" and "Revolt Games" and found some Spanish, Polish and English sources: , , , , , and . → Call me Hahc21 07:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

African Computer Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hoax or attempt to pad someone's CV... A Google search gives 32 hits that apart from this article are all to the South African Computer Society. The society's website, except for the top of the page, consistently calls this society the African Computer Scientists Association (ACSA). An article on this association was deleted last year. In short, even if this organization would be real, it fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:V. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I Strongly believe this article topic is valid and encyclopaedic. Keep This African Computer Society Article until the situation is totally proven false (or not) and should not be deleted as it worth a notable academic references and research awareness to our new generation for educational purposes. This Society is the popular Umbrella association of which all other Computer society belong including the South African Computer Society itself and the Nigerian Computer Society.

This is a reputable society and need to be keep with few edits to turn it into a proper Article for Educational Portal. To be honest, I am quite surprised by the suggestion to delete this article,I think The Nominator claims "as per the guidelines" yet the listed evidences he provided are of no violation importance, but just over the conflict of it origination so being the Old Association of ACSA (African Computer Scientists Association) which was deleted because the First Article writer was a total newcomer, who was unfamiliar with the Knowledge's culture and rules but mistakenly and unknowingly created the article with a whole missing sources, wrong information and references. Everyone makes mistakes, so It is very important to be patient with newcomers editors inputs, who will be unfamiliar with Knowledge's culture and rules, We only have to help them improve such valuable Article like this African Computer Society ones. This article lacks only references and other minor changes to survive. Hence WP:AGF i Object to the deletion arguments given and would request you to look at those improvement necessary for any more improvement with a little closer considerations for African Students and Educational benefit. There is a reference notice for the New Official ACS'S website to be under construction, I count that it is very imperative that this Article should be Keep since it is Notable and highly rated as importance to the interest of academia portal.

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

• African Union/ACS Inaugurated

 DR. DANIEOL OBUOBI   talk Dr. Daniel Obuobi 16:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Completely inadequate sourcing. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The previous article mentioned in the nomination statement was deleted as a copyvio from http://acsaa.getafricaonline.com/About+ACSA. This article doesn't have exactly the same problem, but it does have large chunks of text mysteriously copied without attribution from another Knowledge article on a different subject, Computer Society of India. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Usually Google hits are a poor measure of notability because there are too many and they are too quality. But in this case there are absolutely none for this supposed organization other than this article itself. That seems pretty damning to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Rachna Dayal Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article tracks back to Sapne_Suhane_Ladakpan_Ke. There is very little content and limited context. I don't think there is sufficient context to have this article stand-alone per WP:NOPAGE. I propose to delete or to merge with the article regarding the TV show. Same issue as AfD for Gunjan Mayank Garg Rmosler | ● 05:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• delete non notable character from a series that has not actually established its notability. fails WP:GNG no sourced content to merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Not a notable actress. Only one nomination (Outer Critic Award). If kept, the article must undergo a rewrite because right now it is unsourced and not in the proper tone. JDDJS (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:NACTOR. Contains a lot of unsourced material which is also a BLP issue. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 03:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I have not been able to find substantial coverage by reliable sources to support notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Redirect to Blondie (band) Flat Out let's discuss it 04:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Various reference articles are available confirming details listed in this Knowledge entry (but the entry needs to have citations updated). With this person's continuing contributions to Blondie (including being guitarist on the upcoming 2014 album release), additional source material will be available to strengthen this entry. Recommend retaining article.
http://www.guitarworld.com/guitarist-tommy-kessler-talks-new-blondie-album-networking-and-rock-ages
http://everydayguitargear.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/tommy-kessler/
http://pittsburghmusicmagazine.com/2012/10/07/blondies-tommy-kessler-is-in-it-for-the-long-haul/
http://www.chunechat.com/tommy-kessler.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.206.72 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. only primary references, I did a search and was unable to find secondary prior to closing this AfD Tawker (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Children Awaiting Parents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Currently there is no independent third party reference and I think this article doesn't pass WP:NGO. Jim Carter 02:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I just added a reference and some info from its publicly available nonprofit Form 990 filing to the IRS. It is of significant size, above $1m in assets, and growing, and seems significant. I agree the article should be further developed with more sources, but that is for tagging and for Talk page discussion. --doncram 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Only sources are primary. I can't find any news coverage (even passing mentions) of this charity. Pburka (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking in depth independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

the contents of the article is mostly not about the company, and most of the references are press releases or trivial local news stories. . Incoherent to the degree it needs to be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, the subject seems to meet WP:GNG requirements, for example because of the news articles about the comp-any in the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe. If there are any off-topic tangents they can be easily removed. Sionk (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. There are several news pieces dedicated to the company: from Forbes , the Wall Street Journal , the Orlando Sentinel , the Boston Globe . If it's kept, I'll incorporate some of this info and do some rewriting to try and make it more clear and remove any puffery. Novickas (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

All of this is jargon (among the worst: "physically less able"; "care and reassurance"--for a service which is meant as a substitute for actual personal care; "most well known"); some of it is speculation; some is, such as the illustration or the trade names in the references, appears to be clear advertising, if we are to have an article, we should start over, preferable with a vocabulary appropriate outside as well as in the UK DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep It's a legitimate topic in healthcare policy, covered in several books (Telecare: New Ideas for Care and Support @ Home by Puay Tang, Richard Curry, David Gann; Social Alarms to Telecare: Older People's Services in Transition by Malcolm J. Fisk; Essentials of telemedicine and telecare by Anthony Charles Norris), and a topic which is only going to become more significant. Questions of style can be fixed by editing and therefore aren't grounds for deletion. Being UK-centric can also be fixed by editing and isn't grounds for deletion (else the 100000s of US-centric articles would be deleted). Tagging the page would be a better option. The proposer seems opposed to telecare as a concept and therefore the proposal doesn't seem entirely in good faith. However I agree a rewrite would be good. There may be a weak case for merging to telehealth but the two seem clearly distinct to me. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep It appears to be a thing - there is a 19-year-old Royal Society of Medicine journal called Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, and while this review

  Martin S, Kelly G, Kernohan WG, McCreight B, Nugent C (2008). "Smart home technologies for health and social care support". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4): CD006412. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006412.pub2. PMID 18843715.

  says "An interesting finding from this review is the lack of national and international consensus on terminology, classification or taxonomy of devices, products or service models," my sense from a superficial scan of PubMed-indexed reviews containing "telemedicine", "telecare" and "telehealth" is that telecare is distinct from the other two, neither of which seems to refer purely to monitoring and assistance (like traditional nursing home care) as "telecare" seems to. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Anjuman Talaba-e-Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, the ICG document referenced says "Although the Barelvi JUP has lost most of its political significance, the affiliated Barelvi Anjuman Talaba Islam (ATI) student group has support on many university and college campuses.276" --Soman (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply- One source simply doesn't establish notability. Mind reviewing Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies)? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Even if one source says the group has a wide base at universities, it's only one source. Multiple sources without relation to one another are needed to establish notability, and this subject seems to lack that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Selective merge to List of student federations of Pakistan#Anjuman Talaba-e-Islam, unless reliable sources beyond the sources there and in this article are found - I suspect they exist, but I also think that they may be difficult to find within the period of this AfD (most, I suspect, are likely to be in Urdu). While currently provided sources do not seem to provide enough notability for a standalone article, the ICG document, in addition to the sources already there (or indeed even without them), is adequate for a short section in a more general article. PWilkinson (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by the nominator: Subject is lacking substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability of the subject, and therefore qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comstech inter islamic networks on virtual universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be a project proposal of some sort, it's hard to tell. It definitely has a promotional feel to it. The organization may be notable, I'm not sure, but the way it's currently written makes it difficult to understand. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This is almost material for speedy. From what I can comprehend, this seems to be about some kind of org and the sources really don't support notability. It also smells of promotionalism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

T. Scott Marr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - a local celebrity (see stuff like this) but not much by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources I'm afraid. Stalwart111 07:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete No significant independent coverage given and no real claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the quality of the available sources cannot lift the subject past WP:GNG at this time. §FreeRangeFrog 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Only nominations, no awards; no independent, reliable sourcing; no reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete She has not risen to the level of notability required by the porn bio rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. I don't even think you actually read the article before bringing it to AfD. "No independent, reliable sourcing; no reliably sourced biographical content"? Are you serious? There are only two primary sources (the ones from her website) in the entire article. The rest are "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (AVN and XBIZ). Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the combative and accusatory tone Rebecca, how do you know HW hasn't reviewed these sources and rejected them as regurgitated press release and/or undisguised promotion.

For example. Look at reference 9 in the article which is promotional text trying to get people to pay to watch an X-rated video of an interview. The text goes as follows Aaliyah Love is Twisty’s Treat of the Month! A tasty, succulent treat, you just want to put in your mouth and suck on. She’s like an effervescent ray of sugar and sunshine. If she were a flavor, it would be orange creamsicle. Sweet, creamy, with just a hint of tart. Aaliyah sparkles in this interview and with bubbly enthusiasm, lets us in on all the delicious details about her private life. She tells about the craziest place she’s had sex, what turns her on in a man, and about her sexual fantasies. She’s so entirely ravishing, oozing with buckets of sensuality and unbridled sex appeal, so much so that it’s hard to imagine there was a time when she was a preschool teacher. Lucky for us, Aaliyah switched gears and took the fast track to porn super-stardom. Be sure to check out the NSFW version of this vid where Aaliyah shows us her perky tits and delectable pussy. Not a sight to be missed!

Please can you explain how this source meets our requires and what encyclopedic information we can get from this source. At the same time I looked at the usual reguritated press releases - there is a clue when they include the press release contact at the bottom on their text. So which of this rubbish do you think is a reliable source and why? I'm certainly not accepting your assertions at face value given what is masquerading as a source already. Thanks. Spartaz 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You're voting "delete" because of only one source in the entire article? I never implied that the ZZInsider source contributes to her passing the GNG. I said that she has sufficient coverage in AVN and XBIZ magazines to pass the GNG. And none of the AVN/XBIZ sources in the article are press releases. Press releases on AVN are labeled "Company News" and press releases on XBIZ are labeled "Company Press" and none of the AVN/XBIZ sources in this article are labeled as "Company News/Press". Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm voting delete because none of these purported sources are any good. Lets look at a couple. The first one in the article XBIZ is clearly a press release - look - here it is a again on AVN. Is this reallyt what you think is independant reporting? Me I call it a reprinted press release. AVN Interview is a primary source and doesn't count. This from AVN is clearly a press release - and something very similar shows up here. So another press release. The next purported reference is again XBIZ but guess what AVN has written exactly the same story. Rebecca there are some serious problems with these sources you are relying on. They are not only clearly rewritten press releases but they show you making unfounded allegations of sources not being checked when in fact the issue is that 'YOU haven't done your due diligence. If you want the closing admin to take anything you say seriously you need to actually check your sources, cite them and then demonstrate how they apply to the GNG. Absent that its just unfounded assertions that have very little weight at all. Thanks. Spartaz 07:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The existence of a press release does not invalidate the news article written by a journalist on the same topic or event and AVN and XBIZ are both reliable sources. Me and other editors have explained this to you all numerous times already. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not independent or fact checked if its a reprinted press-release and we have been discounting nonsense like this for years. Your arguments are completely not based on policy or reality. Spartaz 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, you started up saying that none of the sources were press releases, and when I proved they were you chanhed your argument. You are the one who doesn't do their work and you still haven't provided a shred of policy or evidence to support your arguments. Frankly you have absolutely no credibility. Spartaz 09:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no press releases cited in the article. Those AVN and XBIZ sources are reliable and independent of the subject. They weren't written by Love, a publicist, or anyone else affiliated with her. They were written by qualified journalists Rhett Pardon, Mark Kernes, and Todd Lewis. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm bored with your refusal to respond to reality but let me try one more time. If these writers were writing independently, how come their text and article structure are the same? By the way, are you sure Rhett Pardon is a real person? They seem to have no personal internet existence - not even a linkedin profile. Its almost like its a made up person. Fancy that happening in this day and age... Spartaz 13:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Spartaz's analysis is spot on target; Rebecca is just blowing smoke. These "independent" sources are just slightly retouched press releases and presskit pieces, entirely based on PR materials provided on behalf of the subject or her business associates. Compare this "independent" piece of "journalism" (ref #5 in the article) with this piece from a PR feed. The fact that PR material sometimes isn't reprinted exactly verbatim doesn't make it independent, it just shows a little dab of lipstick on the pig. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete BLPs require much better sourcing then available above. Spartaz 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep although this fails WP:PORNBIO, it passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • How? Spartaz 20:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep -seems notable to me Bali88 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as not-notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Spartaz is correct about the low quality of sources for the article. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete - yet another pointless porn star article. Every source is a press release. Yawn. --YasminPerry (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Struck as returning blocked user. Spartaz 19:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - notable enough. Ilovepitts (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with Rebecca1990.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please remember that WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid, and making WP:JUSTAVOTE does not help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete (which I'm surprised to be typing given the number of sources provided). The problem I'm having is that the supposedly independent, reliable sources (like XBIZ) are almost word-for-word reprints of press releases. That's not "journalism" or anything approaching it. The rest of the sources, from what I can tell, are passing mentions in award nomination lists. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, not significant coverage in material written by the subject's agent. Happy to reconsider, of course, but I'm not convinced by the arguments for keeping this presented above. Stalwart111 08:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Stalwart111's argument. Finnegas (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Per Stalwart111's analysis. Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment reprints of press released and passing mention in long lists do not add up to the indepth coverage that is required.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - no reliable sources? geez, there are plenty of them. she passes WP:GNG. We are not here to judge her profession we are here to judge her notability, and that part she does not fail.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What sources do you think meet the GNG? We already looked very closely at the sources in the article so what part of my analysis is incorrect? Spartaz 06:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Born This Way.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Black Jesus + Amen Fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. No in-depth coverage on the song from reliable sources. Coverage from album reviews, Gaga's own comments, or album performance reviews (i.e. tours) doesn't count. If not redirected, article should be deleted and perhaps even salted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep – It charted on two major music markets and a search in Google around the 2011–2012 timeframe shows me enough interviews, analysis and articles on the title and the development. There is material to develop this article beyond stub. —Indian:BIO · 05:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Commentary from Gaga herself in interviews or anything else doesn't count, no matter how in-depth she goes. The charts in this case are moot since the sources talking about their chartings only mention the song briefly. Unless there are multiple reliable sources going in-depth on the song that are not from album reviews, it fails WP:NSONGS. While all songs should be expandable beyond stubs to be notable, being beyond a stub isn't enough when there's no independent in-depth coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It passes point no. 1 of NSONGS, and secondly no charts in national publications talk in-depth about their chart placements. That is wack expectaion and NSONGS does not say so. Thirdly the song has been thoroughly performed live in Gaga's Born This Way Ball and there are sources talking about performance and all. I'm sorry however you may talk about NSONGS, it does pass it. You are correct that it is not present in the article but there are sources. And yes, Gaga's word of mouth is only about inspiration and all, it does not establish notability unless third party sources talk about it, which they have. —Indian:BIO · 06:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Being performed on tour is entirely moot. It really does not pass any of the WP:NSONGS criteria. My point on the charts is that there should be reports talking about a song reaching a position and not just simply a listings page. WP:NSONGS says a song might be notable if it gets certain chartings, but that bit alone is not enough to make it notable. Also, if one takes out the credits/personnel listings (which don't count as notable since they are not independent of the album) and the bits from Gaga herself, the article would be no more than a stub. The song also fails WP:GNG for having no in-depth coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to Born This Way, the song's parent album. I have reworded my rationale below so that it's based on the article's state as of this edit. Here is my view of the references:

(1) Liner notes from the album. Not independent of the subject.

(2) ASCAP database. Assuming the link were fixed, it would show only a listing; no coverage.

(3) E! Online. 2 sentences on the song.

(4) Rolling Stone. 1 sentence on the song, within a 50-song Gaga-centric countdown.

(5) Rolling Stone. No coverage; song is listed as part of a concert setlist.

(6) MTV. Passing mention. "the runway thump of 'Black Jesus'"

(7, 8, 9). Chart listings (which can be appropriately posted at the artist's discography page). No coverage.

Only sources 3 and 4 offer independent coverage for the song which can be considered helpful in establishing notability, and because the total of this coverage is a mere three sentences, I submit that a standalone article is not warranted.  Gongshow   talk 00:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The placement in the Spanish Singles Chart for me makes the track sufficiently prominent and relevant for an article, and I feel that ignoring that could be a form of systemic bias. Some of the reasons given to keep above aren't so valid, but for me that is moot. KaisaL (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Don't worry- there is no bias going on here. If there was more than simply a passing mention on the Spanish charting, it could pass WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, but the simple fact is that there is too little coverage from reliable third-party sources independent of Born This Way for this to be notable enough for its own article. WP:NMUSIC indicates that charting doesn't necessarily make songs notable, particularly when there isn't enough coverage from reliable third-party sources independent of the album to extend beyond a stub. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to Born This Way, which is where the coverage is. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to Born This Way. UK chart can be included in Lady Gaga discography; all other info is covered in Born This Way. Adabow (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog 03:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Like his brother Finn, he produced a vlog about himself. Nominated separately because there is a small element of possible notability from the 3 or 4 minor film roles. The highly promotional article has one of the tell-tell signals of unabashed promotionalism--a good seal of the space is devoted to his own description of his early career, and the person reason he decided to do what he did. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete — Whilst the subject may fail WP:ANYBIO and the article appears to be promotional, I'll note that the subject passes WP:NMODEL (#2). However, I do concede that in it's current form, the article is untenable and hence should be deleted. —MelbourneStar☆ 07:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog 03:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

barely notable,--apparently he & his brother produced a vlog about their own travels-- and quite promotional. some sections are addressed to "you" . Admitted paid editor, and thetefore possibly somewhat uncritical in the subjects written on. See also the adjacent AfD DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Promotional article failing to meet WP:ANYBIO. Iniciativass (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:ANYBIO. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete — Whilst the subject may fail WP:ANYBIO and the article appears to be promotional, I'll note that the subject passes WP:NMODEL (#2). However, I do concede that in it's current form, the article is untenable and hence should be deleted. —MelbourneStar☆ 07:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Triangle productions! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article reads somewhat promotionally and was created by a user called Trianglepro (I have already notified them of the issue with their username on their talk page). There's a substantial number of search results, but many aren't for this Triangle Productions. As best I can tell they are locally prominent, but I don't feel that justifies an article on Knowledge. I also didn't feel that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion because it is heavily referenced (although that perhaps disguises a lack of notability). KaisaL (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I would have speedied this myself, it's obviously non-notable, promotional in tone, and the COI creator has been blocked for using a username that breaches our policies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as spam! Fails WP:GNG . Bearian (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. All sources are local media. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as there are a lot of sources. This is an article that needs to be worked on, rather than deleted. Since the user has been notified about the username, that issue can easily be dealt with if the user takes the right steps. This company has been around for nearly 25 years and has clearly had numerous articles written about it. There are many other local wikipedia pages that have been approved such as Live Wire Radio and Portland Center Stage so the idea of this article being removed for being a local company should be reconsidered. The notes on "Spam" have been taken care of, the multiple links to other articles have been narrowed to one each and the sources on the bottom have had the capitals removed. The sources should be more diverse, looking at other news sources or books for reference instead of The Oregonian. It's a simple fix. Barefeetandcoffee (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note. The above user is one of the original creators of the page (source) and has no contributions that do not relate to the article. They are also a volunteer for Triangle Productions and as such I would cite WP:COI. KaisaL (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• On a personal note, I would argue that lots of sources does not define notability (there's a Knowledge page on this regarding padding an article with lots of references to try and create the illusion of notability, but its name escapes me), and also that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies too. KaisaL (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2014 (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.