Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 27

< 26 July	28 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete all. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony O'Connor (footballer)

(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 an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for now. They appear to faill WP:NFOOTBALL. Once an individual plays football in a professional league, his article can be restored here. It shouldn't be too long, I think. --Artene50 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all fail NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enoguh info to demostrate any notability, and likely not to be available. Also, it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. —Hahc 21 05:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Breese

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

There's enough to avoid an A7 and a past version for his company (since redirected) survived a speedy . That said, I can find no evidence of his notability. All info ties into his own organizations and I can find no evidence of his inclusion in/coverage by secondary sources independent to his own company. StarM 23:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a published author by Moody Press. That's who published the 7 Men Who Rule the World from the Grave Book. Timtom27 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I think he probably meets the limits of notability, though the article needs more citations to support the significance of what he is said to have done as a young man. This is an artivcle in need of improvement, not one for deletion, and should be tagged accordingly. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd be happy to consider withdrawing if someone provides evidence of said notability that don't come from his own organization. StarM 01:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from a record of his publications which match up on Amazon, the majority of the information on Dave Breese is pre-internet. However, in False Teachers, he has a section which basically relays much of what is claimed in the article and proceeds to attack his interpretations and speeches. [1] Though I must state, Christian Destiny is a website for the organization he founded, so that is probably a bad source. Though other ones do exist from google searches. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Peterkingiron.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live 89.5 Radio

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

WP:NOTABILITY is not demonstrated, and I was not able to locate independent reliable sources. Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being the only radio station that has its own local news broadcast in the English language in a city which is a significant international tourist destination is notable. I added a couple of external links and references, and I'm sure more could be found.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Radio stations are covered under WP:BCAST, "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. Local affiliates of notable networks are themselves presumed notable unless they are translator stations (see below)." This is not a translator station (as in repeat a signal of another radio station. Its unique interest is also enough to make it stay. For the purposes of establishing verifiability, we know it exists where it is, and so on, but is it covered by easily researchable internet material? No. Doesn't change the fact it meets notability guidelines and its claims are noted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus Mason Pope

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

Notability asserted, but not documented. GNews had only 3 hits for "Thaddeus Mason Pope", including 1 from high school (trivial mention). There is only 1 hit for "Thaddeus M. Pope" (trivial), and as "Thaddeus Pope" there are only 5 dealing with him, most as one line quotes in articles on other subjects. Fails WP:PROF in all areas. Both article refs are WP:SPS and external links include his homepage, his blog, and his faculty page. GregJackP Boomer! 19:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of only 5. Too early yet to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Exact notability not clear from article. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS results concur with GS. Lots of articles, but not many citations: 14, 5, 2, 2, ... with a cumulative total of ~30 and h-index of 2. These figures seem to contravene the very clear notability claims of the article. Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majesty Crush

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

I can't find significant coverage of this band in multiple reliable sources. Google search for "Majesty Crush" brings up directory/sales listings like last.fm, Amazon, allmusic, a couple of blogs, lots of YouTube videos. So it's established that they existed but notability is in question. ... discospinster _talk 19:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Gongshow did such a great job in locating and adding sources to the article, I would like to withdraw the nomination. ... discospinster _talk 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a June 2005 article with no references to establish its notability. --Artene50 (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the admittedly brief Allmusic bio and somewhat-wordier album review, there are album reviews in The Post and Courier and Option (the latter of which offers only a snippet view, but it exists), a blurb in Billboard, and more recently, a couple reviews for their compilation album. My Bloody Valentine they ain't, but there's enough material about this group in online sources to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 06:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well done to Gongshow for finding those sources. Enough coverage exists to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michig. I've incorporated these refs into the article. Gongshow ^Talk 19:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Mostly per Gongshow. Good job. —Hahc 21 05:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switched-mode power supply applications

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reverted multiple times. When the parts of this article that aren't about switch-mode power supplies are deleted, the small amount of remaining content is completely redundant with Switch-mode power supply#Applications Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article "Switched-mode power supply" (SMPS) mentions little about applications of the SMPS technology which is one of the most widespread and key technologies for electric power conversion currently. Thus it finds uses in many areas not mentioned in the main article. The article mentions both applications and type of (electrical) environments they are used in, be it mobile phone battery charging or nuclear submarine power network. The SMPS article is about the technology itself while the Switched-mode power supply applications, is about the application of it. The contents covered there isn't covered in the main article and thus article nuke and redirect is counterproductive. Adding info to the main article is meet with undoing of contents. This kind disruptive, article removal and delete behavior from the AfD requester has already been up at Administrators noticeboard in 2011. Electron9 (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the Switched-mode power supply article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, but a lot of cleanup is needed. It's an appropriate split, as Northamerica1000 writes, because there's a lot of scope to cover in both articles and we could even hit size limits with the amount that deserves writing on these two major topics. However the current applications article is very poor, in typical WP manner - it's devoid of structure or any editorial coherence. Applications are listed as one sentence notes that don't expand any further than "Foo uses SMPS", there is no context for why they do, why this application benefits particularly, or when they started to use SMPS. In particular, SMPS have a long, but narrow, history that has recently expanded dramatically to replace low-end uses that were previously iron transformers and linear regulators. We need some context as to why this happened. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article material is sufficiently plentiful to warrant retention. However, it could benefit substantially from attention from a knowledgeable editor. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A merge (which Wtshymanski tried first) would make the Switched-mode power supply page too long. The present article needs a lot of work, but Wikipedia has no deadlines, and the sources are out there. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I remind editors that it should not be necessary, at an AfD, to note the need for such article improvements, they should already be there. However, I suggest a bit more discussion back and forth before similar AfDs, they will save us all time. Everyone is acting in good faith, in future it should be easy to get on the same page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was possibly rename or merge. There doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete; in fact the final "delete" comment appears to recommend renaming. There also doesn't appear to be a consensus emerging on whether the topic is notable. I observe that searching Google Books for "Ghana white European ancestry" turns up many hits, most of which are not relevant although some appear to be, so it is possible that better sources exist for this topic, appropriately renamed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Ghanaian

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this minority constitutes an "ethnic group" and therefore fails WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Europeans are represented in numbers in Ghana. It is part of the Ghanaian populace along with Asians and of course Africans which makes up Ghanaians. It will be unwise to delete the article. The article is part of the series of White Africans and Anglo Africans. What I will suggest that should be done is to rename the article from White Ghanaian to "White people in Ghana", this will go inline with White people in Kenya and White people in Zimbabwe etc. If you now steel feel that the article should deleted Seb az86556, then as I'am the creator of the article, I give you Seb az86556 permission to immediately speedy delete this article, as there is no point in delaying the deletion with a pointless discussion process. MarkMysoe (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the tools to delete anything here, and the reason I put this up for discussion is because, well... I want a discussion. So let people chime in. I simply doubt the notability of this group; if there are sources which tell us that these decendants of Europeans are indeed a) as influential as whites in Zimbabwe (see Rhodesia) and/or are b) forming a sufficiently large and distinct group (for example Afrikaner) then yes, that would make them notable. I just haven't seen any sources that would support the claim. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are some white people or their descendents in Ghana. Perhaps this article should simply be renamed White people in Ghana to avoid any future confusion. --Artene50 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need refs now!!... and it should be called Ghanaians of European ancestry. Cant see how anyone can think to make an article with not one ref and expect it to not come up for deletion.Moxy (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Ghanaians of European ancestry is fine, too. --Artene50 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Also nothing to move. White people in Kenya and in Zimbabwe are notable, because of the history of those two countries. That's totally different from Ghana. Tamsier (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. European people in Ghana would be more professional and accurate -- What is white?--Inayity (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tree fall

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and reads as if it was written as a joke. Here are some quotes that you may enjoy:

"A person surviving a little tree falling is common, but surviving an extremely big tree is extremely rare"
"Because when the tree falls it loses all its breathing, photosynthesis and other important stuff that trees have."
" They should be planted with care and patience so that they get planted in the ground."

-I recommend deleting it and redirecting to blunt trauma Peter.C • talk • contribs 17:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this unsourced essay could possibly be a hoax or joke, or may simply be a piece of juvenilia. Whatever it is, there is no rescuable content. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Chiswick said it all. It's at the very least original research; probably also somebody's idea of a joke. I'm surprised it lasted this long (2 months). --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, probably a joke. Nothing in this article is worth saving. It might be possible to write a sensible article on this subject, but it would be better to start from scratch. CodeTheorist (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Magnotta

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: While there are references they are all in Italian yet the Italian WP doesn't have an article on this person. Doesn't seem significant outside Italy, and not even in Italy. RJFJR (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the parallels with Italian Wikipedia does not affect this discussion, Italian Wikipedia has different users, different guidelines and different notability rules, ie there it does not exist WP:GNG that instead is fundamental in English Wikipedia, and the subject appears to pass this guideline. Specifically, looking at first reference [2], in addition to being "significant coverage in a realiable source" (as well as the fouth), it documents that after his death a street was named with his name (see also [3]), sign of some lasting notability. There are still also (verifiable) events dedicated to his memory such as a Magnotta Day. So, keep, per GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and improve - Meets WP:BASIC per [4], [5]. Also, per WP:GNG, sources are not required to be in English. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close Bad nomination. Notability is not limited to one nation. If that sort of coverage in English speaking sources would make someone notable, then the same sort of coverage in a different language makes them notable as well. No article on another Wikipedia is not a valid reason to delete an article either. The Italian Wikipedia only has 943,354 articles while the English Wikipedia has 4,012,201. No valid deletion nomination given. And the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Dream Focus 10:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are a ton of italian newspaper articles about this person stretching over years. e.g., 2001 [6], to just this year [7]]. The lack of an italian wikipedia article doesn't change anything, e.g., i created Stevo Karapandža the other day. Stevo is a very popular Croatian chef, but hr.wiki doesn't have an article on him, and in fact nothing substantive in English has ever been written about him. But he's still notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Portland Rosebuds (baseball). Clear consensus to redirect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Roses

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was just another name for the Portland Rosebuds baseball team. See [8] and [9]. Though it was sometimes called the Roses, "Rosebuds" looks like it was the official name.

I've already added the name "Roses" to the Rosebuds article, so I think this article should be either redirected there or just deleted. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, alternate name. RJFJR (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Portland Rosebuds per above. Gongshow ^Talk 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for now, as an alternate name of the Rosebuds team. The Rosebuds article could be expanded to include all three teams with that name (let's not worry for now about the possible problem of the article being too long by covering all three teams--they were all short-lived and we can always fork content later). I am not opposed to deleting the Portland Roses article, but perhaps a redirect is more appropriate in case someone searches for details about the team without knowing their official name. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of course, In the future be BOLD and do the redirect when its a obvious case like this....William 00:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Rlendog (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portland Rosebuds (baseball). I forked the content to help make more sense of the article. --Esprqii (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teofilia Ludwika Zasławska

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable: no significant coverage in independent sources Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her first name was Teofila. She was a member of a notable Polish noble family, the Polish king John III Sobieski was her uncle. The Polish article is well developed and cites a good source, monography of the Wiśniowieckis (her husband's family). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could expand this article to demonstrate her notability?Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable, part of the Polish royal family. There's plenty of sources [10].VolunteerMarek 18:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this an English language Wikipeida and you cannot assume that the reader can read Polish in order to verify the citation. Not that I doubt you, but since I can't read Polish, how do I know that the citation states what is claimed? Furthermore, Wikipedia notes "As for the rest, it is not rare for articles strongly related to a particular language not to have counterparts in another edition. For example, articles about small towns in the United States might only be available in English, even when they meet notability criteria of other language Wikipedia projects." Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Relation to a notable person is not by itself sufficient for notability, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria. Is there any material available in English that could be used to support independent notability? 19:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkharrisjr (talk • contribs) (!vote by nominator struck through here as duplicative. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- "Material in English" is not necessary. Just reliable sources. Which we have. Seriously, she was a significant person related to several significant persons and families. Also, check the more extensive entry at pl-wiki.VolunteerMarek 20:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with my rationale, but please do not strike out my vote.Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your !vote here does get struck, because your nomination counts as a !vote, and you are not allowed to !vote twice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note, the vote above was cast by the nominator himself, User:Wkharrisjr, who also intentionally made the article look less adequate with his final copy edit. Wkharrisjr removed all words meant to give additional context and enhance the political significance of family members, and he also intentionally garbled internal links to heraldic emblems. For example, the link to Janina coat of arms became Janina – a city in north-western Greece; the link to Ostrogski coat of arms became Ostrogski – a double redirect to generic name, and so on. I would like to ask Wkharrisjr to please, refrain from making disruptive edits to articles which you nominate, in order to defend your position. Poeticbent talk 05:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my intent was not to amke the article to look less notable but to clean up the article so that if it remained it would be more inline with Wikipedia standards. The Wikilnk to Janina coat of arms was removed because it made no sense: "She was the daughter of Katarzyna Sobieska of Janina coat of arms, "makes no sense. My fault was that I assumed that Janina would link to the family and not a town in Greece- I should have checked before making that link but I do not apologize for trying to make a sentence sensible. Likewise for the link to Ostrogski. Rahter than a blanket revert, perhaps you could reword these sentences so that they will make sense? As to removing the additional context, my goal was to pare out material not directly relavent to the subject of the article. As to whether the article remains or not, I am ambivalent, but I am just asking the community at large as to wheter she is truly notable for her own achievements or notable for being related to someone notable, which is doesn't meet the Wikipeida threshold for notability. Reference in a foreign language does not help an non Polish speaker understand the context of her accomplishments. Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. For the second time, user Wkharrisjr botched the article with his partisan editing. Nothing works and nothing makes sense, including the internal link to [[Ordynacja#Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth|Ordination] which he badly re-formatted to make it appear amateurish and useless. He reverted a lot of the copy back to his own prior POV version for no reason other than to disrupt the process. Please stop it, or just take this article off you watchlist. Poeticbent talk 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are taking my edits as an attempt to insert my POV unless you consider trying to make the article clearer to a non-Pole> I have already conceded that the article meets ntoability, expecially with the additional content added since I first nominated the article. I was attempting to clarify the inheritance process (from what I could discern) and the recent re-edit by User:Piotrus I think made things even clearer and certainly made the reason for notability more obvious. Although you may be upset about my initial nomination, I think we can both agree that the process has led to a stronger and better article. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, an important character in Polish history. I added some supporting info to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a small expansion using readily available i-links. Poeticbent talk
Keep This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encylopedia of the English language speaking world. References to sources in languages other than English are entirely acceptable to establish notability, although English sources are preferable when readily available to choose from. A topic covered in reliable, independent sources in other languages is notable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia even if English sources on the topic are lacking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of a major noble family, related to royalty, and she did stuff, as witnessed in our article, and the larger Polish one. Noble politics and intrigue, but that does make her notable. Last but not least, I've added a note that she was "the fifth ordinate of the Ostrogski Ordination." (pl:Ordynacja Ostrogska). That's a notable position - case closed.

Could you then incorporate the material in the Polish version of Wikipedia (translated into English, of course)? Someone who does not read Poloish has to assume that this person is not notable based on what they can read. Note that I am not objecting to retaining the article, per se, but to the non-Polish reader (and this is the English Wikipedia, so one must assume the reader cannot read Polish) cannot see the notability of this person. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what I consider sufficient (her ordynat title). It is linked, and the readers and editors can follow the appropriate links to those articles. While I could expand the article, I frankly prefer to spend my times on more important entries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am not familiar with Polish inheritance laws. I infer from your edit that she was the fifth person to which the property was passed onto- is this correct? If so, I will try to edit it to make it clearer to the casual reader. And why not expend the article? If it is, as you argue, important enough to be included in Wikipedia, why not expand it to demonstrate its importance? Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if there are any sources I can find, might as well try to DYK this. But I do think it is notable as it is, as any ordynat person (heir to ordynacja) is, IMHO, notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I think it is obvious we will keep the article, and it has been sufficiently expanded, I've nominated it for Template:Did you know nominations/Teofila Ludwika Zasławska. Thank you to all who helped, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Royalty are notable. Sctechlaw (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F-Zero: Climax

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this Japanese-exclusive game awhile ago since making a comprehensive reception section to establish its notability seemed impossible. Climax doesn't seem to be listed on metacritic anymore. When it was, basically these were the reviews there. GameRankings is empty. « ₣M₣ » 15:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect if there is something to redirect it to. (If this material was merged don't we need to retain the history so we know who provided the material that was merged?) RJFJR (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be merged to F-Zero. Also, the original article was at F-Zero Climax before it was copy/pasted to its current location. « ₣M₣ » 16:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per coverage from third party, reliable sources found below. (Sometimes, with games like this, instead of looking for reviews, you need to look for previews from the timeframe when sources thought it would probably be released in other regions. I've learned this in my writing articles on obscure, JRPGs.)
- IGN, x2
- Nintendo World Report
- Siliconera
- GameSpot, x2
  - (EDIT: It seems some of what I found was at the link FMF gave too. Still, that doesn't change the fact that there's enough coverage to warrant the game's article. In fact, it adds Famitsu to my list of sources that covered it as well.)Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've cleaned up and added to the article some since nomination. It's still pretty rough around the edges, but the third party coverage is there. It's certainly not a WP:GA, but it does meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per significant coverage. I doubt a press release-esque article regurgitated on multiple gaming sites automatically means the game is notable. Shouldn't a editor spend time critiquing the product? Minus those, three links left. What makes Siliconera reliable? Only four sources are reliable without question and actually bothered to spend time with the product. « ₣M₣ » 16:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:GNG - Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. It says nothing about having a certain number editors or sources critiquing the product. That's not a particular requirement of the GNG, which is the ultimate thing we must adhere to here. There's enough coverage to do what quote above regarding the GNG is saying.
Regarding Siliconera, per the consensus regarding sources by Wikiproject Video Games, Siliconera is useable under the circumstance of: only for Japanese exclusive titles or titles there exclusive at the time the page being cited was published. Or, in other words, situations exactly like this one.
Above all, lets remember what we're discussing here. This isn't user created fan game or non-notable junk from the App Store. This is a game from a major publisher, in part of a long running series. There's coverage out there, whether we have access to it right now or not, whether it be printed media, sources from Japan, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

←)There is no discussion I can find proving Siliconera, and it doesn't matter what this game is apart of since notability is not inherited. As far as I'm concerned, the only way to prove this article's worth is through non-trivial sources, not single paragraphs claiming the game's announcement or rumors of its existence. Non-trivial reliable-proven sources are IGN and Nintendo World Report. I'm not sure about Famitsu Cube & Advance, and Famitsu Weekly since their reviews consists of four editors writing one paragraph each. [11] Not to mention these will be hard to find and no English source bother translating it. « ₣M₣ » 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, you didn't look very hard when it comes to Siliconera. Per the link I just gave you above, it took all of 5 seconds to find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_4#Siliconera
  - Regarding Famitsu, there is no deadline, all we need to know now at AFD is that the coverage is out there. I'm sure we can find someone to translate it sooner or later. And to suggest that a review from such a major source wouldn't count towards the WP:GNG is quite a stretch. I think you're hold the threshold for meeting the GNG higher than what it truly is meant to be... Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding and translating this Famitsu weekly review is a lost cause. Overall, a great project for someone to work on their userpage, but its not appropriate for a stand-alone article that is going to mainly rely on three third-party English sources. This doesn't have the potential seen on Kid Klown in Crazy Chase. « ₣M₣ » 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a lost cause? Why is it not appropriate? Why isn't there potential? Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable game that passes WP:GNG CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 02:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:HEY. Cavarrone (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as long as GP Legend is. AnddoX (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although it's definitely not pretty, Sergecross's additions have made the article pass WP:N. Nomader (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and format sources. New sources are very reliable and demonstrates the notability of the game. —Hahc 21 05:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was well reviewed, commented on and covered by respected magazines and reviewers, got plenty of press and is part of a notable series. No reason to delete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jolla

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

Not notable: less than 100 employees; no product on the market; less than 3 weeks after their first press release; lack of WP:RS: most information about the company is repeated information from press/Twitter releases of the company and CEO interviews Lumialover (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the company was founded few weeks ago, however, it was noted by many important media, see for example International Business Times, Techcrunch, THe Economic Times. @nominator: Do you love Nokia Lumia? It would be an interesting coincidence, since the company was formed by former Nokia employees :D --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I know the Jolla has been founded in 2011, so not 3 weeks ago. 3 weeks is the moment when Nokia's PR1.3 update for Linux MeeGo Harmattan for the Nokia N9 mobile has been released by the team of engineers, and after this they were fired form Nokia and has joined the Jolla company - this fact that almost the whole team which created Nokia N9 has joined the Jolla has initiated common interested in the Jolla all over the world. Because (a) this is famous team of their achievements with Nokia N9 (b) they declared to continue what they have already proved they are best in. So Jolla need to be seen and considered with the Nokia N9 created by exactly the same team in frames of Nokia company, what proves they are not accidental group of employees only. Also Jolla a some time before was functioning under different name of company. It has been renamed to Jolla after famous the "Burning Platform" memo about Symbian by Steven Elop, so Jolla can be interpreted as "life boat" like dinghy for life resque. And used for Nokia Bridge program when atmosphere in Nokia were collapsing. I suppose this is misunderstanding so wanted to explain, however if would be aware then it could be treated as a kind of manipulation. Confirmation: mentioned as source in article official Finnish company register. Ocexyz (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What a load of crap. "released by the team of engineers" - Bzzzt - wrong! Most people who worked on the N9 no longer worked on the project by that stage. Even I, who was basically the guy who turned out the lights for his team, had left by that stage. "almost the whole team which created Nokia N9 has joined the Jolla" - pure unadulterated bollocks. It's so far from the truth it's laughable. Don't think I'm picking on you, plenty that follows is bollocks as well. Fatphil (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has currently less than 100 employees but is planning to expand to over 100 employees during this year and is continuously recruiting talented individuals. Will be announcing its first product within a few months, it could enter the market this year. A notable company as it has got wide press coverage, as theres a lot of public interest in it, which would indicate Jolla is a strong competitor in the mobile segment and therefore notable. As said also seems more like something personal as the nickname suggests "Lumia lover" which is a product of Nokia and the company was formed mainly from former Nokia employees who were and are developing a competing product to Lumia. Mayhaymate (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPA
- which would indicate Jolla is a strong competitor Without a product on the market it is certainly not a competitor at all as of today.
- Please read WP:NTEMP and WP:CRYSTAL and reconsider claims starting with is planning to, Will be announcing or it could enter.
- Jolla could die just like Meltemi (operating system) without any product ever. That article was also wrongly kept in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meltemi (operating system) based on speculation about the future before it was deleted for good in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meltemi (operating system) (2nd nomination)
- Lumialover (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We know that the company exists, we know that it is discussed in reliable secondary sources, so I see no problem regarding notability with the company by some chance dying before any product releases: it still made the news and according to those reliable secondary sources it employed people, planned products, struck deals with other companies etc. If you have a problem with the content or form of the article, perhaps better to discuss that on the article's Talk page? --TuukkaH (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons for the alleged non-notability and thus for the proposed deletion are invalid per Wikipedia policy: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." (see WP:CORPDEPTH). The article properly cites this signifant coverage in (reliable) secondary sources, thus it's notable, thus the article should not be deleted. As for most of this information being repeated from the company press releases, tweets and CEO interviews, I'd expect that to be the case for many company articles and I see no problem as long as reliable secondary sources vet this information provided by the company itself. (Self-published information is not denied by Wikipedia policy per se, see e.g. WP:SELFSOURCE.) --TuukkaH (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not much information in the article that can be vetted by secondary sources at all (see also WP:COMPANY).
- One secondary source had the headline CEO Plans Two Smartphones Already and the next day the CEO tells another secondary source that was a misunderstanding. The CEO can tell whatever he wants about his company and it's plans and noone can vet it.
  - This Forbes article seems to consider the product to be credible. I vote keep, but it's a grab bag. I'm a MeeGo user but the article IS a bit thin and so is authoritative information. It is however legitimate and Nokia has confirmed it's existence as well as the Bridge program that is "sponsoring" the production of this phone when the issue on "gifting" of patents was falsely reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imstillhere (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is wrong to claim this was a Forbes article. This is a blog post expressing the personal opinion of a contributing writer to Forbes.com (different company with different CEO). (Ewan Spence is btw most famous for his work at his main enterprise All About Windows Phone). Lumialover (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lumialover (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - When a reliable secondary source publishes something they vet it. WP:COMPANY doesn't say much anything. A misunderstanding between Tech Crunch and a CEO is no reason to delete an article.--TuukkaH (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:COMPANY states that some companies fulfilling the notability guidelines are not truly notable. Jolla is an example of overtly or covertly advertising a company due to the lack of information not originating from the company itself.
    - Your claim everything a reliable secondary source publishes would be vetted is clearly wrong. To disprove your claim, just look at this Wall Street Journal article that clearly states that all information in the article is based solely on statements of the CEO of Jolla.
    - Lumialover (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:COMPANY is not a policy, it's not even a guideline; it's just "alternate criteria" that can be used to establish notability in addition to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG (which the article does pass in flying colours). Anyway, it doesn't provide guidelines to assess the alledged advertising, all it says is "care must be taken." Regarding this WSJ article, I'm sorry but I don't see it stating what all it's based on. --TuukkaH (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:COMPANY is part of WP:CORP. WP:CORP claims This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow for the whole page including WP:COMPANY.
        
        Regarding this WSJ article, I'm sorry but I don't see it stating what all it's based on. Let me educate you how the WSJ quotes sources. It might be confusing since different to wikipedia it is not with refs - it is inline in the text:
        The first paragraph states that Finnish start-up Jolla Ltd. is in talks with hardware makers and the second paragraph explains that this is based on statements of Jolla's CEO directly quoting one of those statements.
        
        The third paragraph says Mr. Hurmola ... said and he said making it clear they are just citing him.
        
        Press publications like the WSJ explicitely make it clear for each statement what sources they have for it. By name when possible. When anonymous they are mentioned with phrases like senior defense official the WSJ is proud to have insider information and boldly tells that without revealing the identity of the person they spoke with.
        
        Nowhere in the Jolla WSJ article does the WSJ claim to have any sources (named or anonymous) other than the CEO of Jolla.
        
        Lumialover (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read WP:CORP, you'll see that WP:COMPANY is subsection 4.2, under section 4 WP:CORP#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations. As to WSJ, they assess reasonability and do fact-checking without writing it explicitly in the article. --TuukkaH (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The number of employees and lack of a product are irrelevant to notability. Whilst I have some sympathy with the argument that this article is too soon, there is just about enough press coverage to satisfy the notability requirements although I'd certainly be happier if the coverage was more in depth. In the future if the company proves to be less important than it currently appears then we can merge some of the content into the MeeGo article. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons for the alleged non-notability and thus for the proposed deletion are invalid per Wikipedia policy: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." (see WP:CORPDEPTH).

The number of employees is not a criteria (if it would then what exact number of employees? Why 1000? Why 3? Why not 10000 only? Why not 10 only? This would be an absurd.)

Jolla as fact has been confirmed by at last 2 independent and reliable sources:

- Finnish register, source in law

- Nokia, recognisable company

- Bridge program by Nokia, as a member of it, and all members were chosen in the selection process so it is additional prove the Jolla is significant in what it does

- world widely recognisable engendering team, and former Nokia's employees

- open community of developers and users interested in MeeGo and Jolla's work

Jolla has made significant and notable achievements:

- after only 1 year it has signed contract with distributor in China D.Phone which is strategic partner of China Telecom. In fact in China reality that mean there was established indirectly the kind of agreement with the biggest telecom and mobile operator in whole this planet. Such a contract is signed only with companies like Nokia, Sony Ericsson and similar reliable and recognised companies.

- that means the Jolla due to what has proposed to Chinese partners, what in fact was Jolla's technology and smartphone, is recognised and treated on the same terms and conditions as the biggest companies on the mobile market. Even if Jolla would not have any own product (what is very improbable) then with this contract must be treated as serious trade company able to sell in China market, and only a few companies can import to China in fact.

- Also this is the only European start-up with such agreement with such partners from such a market

- - what in total, all above, make it notable.

Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia is to be neutral about technologies, so can't deny any technology it exists - with removing Jolla article that would be the case.

Rules of Wikipedia are to prevent legitimate content against devastation and censorship. Jolla is legitimate and proved fact. Removing it would be against the fact it exist and it is significant on the market and significant for open software community which is worldwide community of big number customers.

Rules of Wikipedia are to prevent against actions in bed will. Attempt to remove important for interested in persons article would disallow to work with an article, would disallow to notify next facts like launch of Jolla smartphone in nearest future, would disallow to notify facts about technology created by Jolla. In shortcut: remove of this article would be equal to censorship preventing significant part of wikipedia users community to get knowledge about prooved and legitimate facts about Jolla. This would be not a Wikipedian care for quality of articles, this would be an attempt of discrimination of a significant part of wikipedia community interested in: open source, Linux, MeeGo, Jolla company, technology created by Jolla, user interface created by Jolla, new smartphones, significant companies in mobile market, significant non-chinesee companies at China market. Also that would delete a part of picture of following categories: Companies of Finland, Electronics companies of Finland, Finnish brands, Mobile phone manufacturers, Telecommunications equipment vendors, Mobile phone companies of Finland.

I think reason of this discussion can be motivated by one's POV and preferences in technology which caused attempt towards to deletion of certain technology (so Linux MeeGo and Jolla's created technology in IT and mobiles) from Wikipedia. Hence to remove the Jolla article is against rules which are to create Wikipedia as objective and neutral source of encyclopaedic knowledge, so would be against encyclopaedic approach to share with knowleadge, so against Wikipedia as encyclopaedia finally.

I add this because seems to me that I have observed with some articles efforts to enforce Microsoft technology-centric POV, which exclude non-Microsoft technology to have values or use ability, what in consequence lead to attempts to delete legitimate and proved facts and knowledge. Ocexyz (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If things like CrunchBang Linux and BeleniX are notable, then this definitely is. --ilaiho (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jolla is an important part of the MeeGo saga that started with Nokia's venerable Maemo distribution. My blog post can probably help to set this in context. It is also remarkable for a new Finnish company receiving unprecedented international coverage in a short time --bergie 14:22, 2 Aug 2012 (UTC)
Keep The distribution deal with China D.Phone (which is strategic partner of China Telecom) should be enough to show this isn't fake news. Also, as noted by few above the company register of Finland has valid registrations regarding this company. Nmshenoy (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the carousel of alternative mobile operating systems is spinning faster every day (MeeGo, B2G, Nemo, Firefox OS, Gnome OS, Tizen, ...) it is important, that all players are represented at Wikipedia and none is omitted. Even more, as Jolla intends to continue the MeeGo story and is referenced in the MeeGo atricle as well.--Manankanchu (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing that this is being taken seriously given that the deletion is proposed by someone posting under the name "lumialover". It strikes me more as astroturfing and corporate manipulation of the Wiki by Microsoft rather than any valid justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.201.242.130 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Motion to delete is from a single person with obvious agenda, and I believe there is merit for retaining the article (no new pro arguments beyond those already presented). That said, my support will be re-evaluated if no product appears by 31 December 2012. I would also like to see more details about the company and its plans released in interviews. --Texrat (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability stablished to warant an article. Also, plenty of sources are available covering the topic. No reason why it fails the notability guidelines (and likely do not exist). —Hahc 21 05:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur that the motion to delete is from an individual with an obvious agenda. The article will serve as a valuable landing point for those wanting to research the company and its future products. MrJRT (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Gimber Kuhn

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two stage performances in America `50 years ago; no significant media reference. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NACTOR as the Winter Garden was a major theater in the United States during that era. Here's a biographical sketch published in 1870. She was mentioned seven times in Annals of the New York Stage: 1857-1865. This shows that she performed under her maiden name Sophie Gimber with John Wilkes Booth, one of the country's top actors before he assassinated Abraham Lincoln. She was mentioned here in the diary of Lincoln's assistant John Hay. Here's information on an 1863 performance at the Academy of Music in New York. Here's information about an 1862 performance at the Holliday Street Theater in Baltimore. Yes, the article is a stub but we ought to strive to include biographies, even brief ones, of notable 19th cerntury stage performers. With work, these biographies can be improved over time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since she meets notability requirements for entertainers: Has had significant roles in multiple...stage performances. We shouldn't punish her for being a stub. Lets encourage expansion, especially in light of the Booth/Lincoln connection above. Arghonaut (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[12]

Keep Notable then is just fine. We do not expect someone who died 145 years ago to have headlines today. It's a stub. So what. We allow and expect stubs on notable topics to grow over time and through regular editing, without requiring their deletion for being stubby. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The sources already in the article are sufficient to meet the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets GNG. —Hahc 21 05:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability requirements, has sources and is a puzzle piece for history to a bygone era. It was like being a Broadway star, even as a stub, it should be kept. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to /Electoral fraud#Ballot stuffing. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost voter

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

Ghost Voter is just a dictionary term used to define a vote that should not have counted in an electoral ballet because the voter is either dead, ineligible, or non-existent. As a result, not much has been done to improve the article since its creation over 4 1/2 years ago. The three sources are not that great being that they just define the term and do not provide anything encyclopedic (e.g. origins, history, criticisms, notable cases, etc) and searching the term on Google and Google Books do not come up with anything better. Last week, a PROD that provided a clear reason for deletion was removed by User:Colonel Warden without an explanation. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electoral fraud#Ballot stuffing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electoral fraud#Ballot stuffing, the original reason for decision provided in the PROD seems legitimate and I don't see enough reason for this term to have its own article. Ducknish (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Electoral fraud#Ballot stuffing. Per nom. & Ducknish, not notable enough for a standalone article. Does have some sourcing, however, and is a relevant point of interest within the subject of electoral fraud.--JayJasper (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Shirt58 (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Una Guðmundsdóttir

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

Icelandic person, purported Psychic. Regardless of claims, would appear to fail WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG and so on. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination, following Yngvadottir's rationale, and the now SNOWily notability of this article.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, no indication of wp:notability, does not even claim anything notable.
Delete. Although the spelling makes searching difficult, and I'd be prepared to believe I missed something, I found absolutely nothing to indicate that this individual has received any notice indicating notability from a reliable source. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She became nationally known and was the subject of a best-selling book (whose title translates as "The völva of Suðurnes": short article on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of her birth in Morgunblaðið, which also supports the biographical specifics in the article. Here are the 4 listings of the book at OCLC. Here's the foundation of the group seeking to preserve her house, at Vísir (news site owned by 365 miðlar, not the former newspaper). She also plays a minor part in this story, which originally appeared in Morgunblaðið. So she is demonstrably nationally notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now rewritten the article with references. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Khan

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

Promotional article, what isn't original research is self-sourced (marxist.com and newyouth.com are websites of the International Marxist Tendency, which Khan is a leader of, or its youth wing "Youth for International Socialism"). Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdraws AFD. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Lovelace

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

Non notable animator. Imdb says he has only worked on 2 or 3 short films and appear to be a local cartoonist. No hits in google books or extensive coverage in reliable web sources. Aside from this the article appears to be a COI and the photograph of the individual was taken by the article writer. The reason for creating the article is purely promotional; the creator was "doing a friend a favour", the same friend who drew lurid cartoons for his product Metasonix which he is trying to promote, yet even the external link to his own website metasonix.com is a dead link. It tries to claim notability by for wining a gold award but cites sources simply as "Yankovic Heads 'Straight Outta Lynwood' ^ Flash Animation Gets Weird". Yankovic Heads 'Straight Outta Lynwood simply mentions the name, rather than extensive coverage about his work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:SIGCOV. Thine Antique Pen 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are few, if any, reliable secondary sources. Film and animation work doesn't seems to satisfy WP:FILMMAKER. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing original to say. As per Thine Antique Pen. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 13:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Raajneeti#Sequel. Jenks24 (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raajneeti 2

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

An article for a film that doesn't exist yet and has no references heather walls (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF Ducknish (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect for now per WP:CBALL and WP:NFF to Raajneeti#Sequel where it is reasonable to have this second film discussed. Due to the noteriety of the first film, the topic of the sequel will doubtless be able to show separate notability... and almost has enough currently under different spellings of its name,[13][14] but for now it is simply too much speculation and thus a bit WP:TOO SOON for a separate artcle for this project which has yet to film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per reasoning given by Michael Schmidt. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A10 -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

集成电路

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

Not in english heather walls (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A10, redundant to existing article Integrated circuit. Tagged for CSD accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo de Andrade

(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 without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ !vote struck, see below yup, per the Snowman. Campeonato Paulista Série A3 isn't a fully professional league; he would need to have played in the A1 series to be notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Can we get confirmation the Moldovan league is semi pro and what about the europa league apperances? Seasider91 (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His Europa League appearances have all been in qualifying meaning they do not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's made appearances in the Moldovan National Division, which to all intents and purposes seems to be the highest division in Moldova, and (one would assume) is fully pro. It isn't listed at WP:FPL, which is why I assumed he was non-notable. Striking my delete !vote above, since this suggests he might pass WP:NFOOTY after all. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of reliable sources confirming that the Moldovan top flight is fully pro, this article still fails WP:NSPORT, since notability requires verifiable evidence. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I haven't found any (can't read Cyrillic, though). I'm not moving to support retaining the article, merely registering that my original !vote may have been overly hasty. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since while I also haven't seen the Cyrillic sources, it seems very likely based on Football in Moldova and Moldovan National Division articles that this is a pro league, thus meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Even if that is not the case, it wouldn't make sense that the highest level of national play in a country wouldn't be considered notable. If so, there would need to be an amendment made to the notability guidelines. WP:BURDEN: It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. This isn't BLP. Arghonaut (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, notability requires verifiable evidence. In the absence of any sources confirming the Moldovan National Division as fully pro, we cannot assume, however that reasonable that assumption may be, that it is. It would shock me to learn that the league is entirely amateur, but to assume full professionalism without sources to back it up goes to far. Second, the claim that playing in a national top flight should automatically grant notability is fallacious. There are a number of national top flights listed as not fully pro at WP:FPL. Proposals to make playing in a national top flight a notability criteria have been presented several times to the WP:WikiProject Football, and have been resoundingly rejected every time. Finally, of course this is a BLP. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can show that the Moldovan National Division is a fully professional league. Number 57 08:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IntraWeb VCL

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

I don't think this is notable. At least article can not show that. –ebraminio^talk 09:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient references to establish notability for this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my search revealed no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. More like no discussion. No prejudice against speedy renomination — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Trans Star Internacional

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This came up on the CSD circuit, but I feel that there is just enough notability in the page that it should not be speedily axed, so here we are. I have no opinion on the article staying or going, I just feel that this should be given a chance to live. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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} 01:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Nominator does not advance a reason for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - Nominator seems to have misspoken. It seems s/he meant "indication of importance" and not "notability". Note that the article was originally tagged for CSD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any evidence that it meets WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Keep" comments assert nothing other than "useful" or "I think there may be sources somewhere". While it is correct that there don't have to be sources to verify notability in the article, there needs to be at least clear evidence that they exist, not just the claim that they may exist somewhere, maybe. While redirection was discussed, there seems to be no agreement on a reasonable target. If anyone wants a copy of the article in userspace temporarily to work on while sources are found (or to consider merging, if a target can be found), feel free to ask me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEAL GUI

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

Only three sources, two of which are first-party, and the other barely mentions the subject; search for further sources proved futile. Non-notable. Keφr (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not familiar with the current status of the SEAL project, but I remember that the SEAL GUI created quite some enthusiasm in the DOS community, as it offered a nice new GUI for DOS-based systems. I even remember one or two articles in the printed press (beyond online coverage), although it may be difficult to find them after all these years in order to establish notability. I do believe the subject should not be deleted, but (ideally) be expanded beyond its current stub status.

Also, I'm concerned that the initiator of this proposal for deletion hasn't chosen much less drastic measures first (that is, raise questions on reliability of sources or bring up proposals how to improve the article on the talk page first, or actually start improving an article himself - just searching for keywords in Google is hardly enough to seriously base non-notability decisions on), and also that he has tagged several other (but only DOS-related) articles for deletion or started to truncate them as well without prior discussions on the talk pages. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that the WP:BURDEN is with the one who adds material. And "community enthusiasm" is not a reliable source. Speaking of which, I do not see anyone here adding lots of these. There is nothing to ask about the already used sources - the policy is clear that sources should be independent and discuss the subject in-depth. As for the last point, what are you trying to say? I am just trying to enforce policy. Keφr (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the 'most notable' of the DOS distributions that use SEAL derivatives. Yura87 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least it was useful for me. I came upon wikipedia searching for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.109.217 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 July 2012‎

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one reliable ref in the article is a passing mention. I could not find any other sources to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References establishing notability do not need to be listed in the article, they just need to exist (although the latter implies that in most cases they could be listed in the article at some point). Also, not all references can be found by Google search (actually I think the majority of sources cannot be found by Google, in particular if they happen to be a few years old, were in the printed press, or in other countries). I do remember some SEAL related news in the German printed press, but that's years ago and I don't have all magazines archived and don't have the time to search for then at present, anyway.

Perhaps we should merge the QubeOS article (also in AfD at present) by the same author into the SEAL article? Both articles are short and I assume there are some similarities between the two projects (but don't know for sure). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no online reliable sources covering the topic in depth (apart from the reference already in article I found a slideshow by PCWorld, which is also a trivial mention). As the project doesn't predate the internet (it seems to be first released in 1999), the lack of online media covering subject does indicate the lack of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above, these things were quite widely used at the time. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: merge to QubeOS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, merges should be based on sourced material, and this article does not seem very rich in it. Keφr (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete unless the other article gets deleted. Possible search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: redirect to QubeOS? The only thing these two have in common is the initial developer. QubeOS didn't inherit SEAL GUI's source code (they are written in different languages: QBasic and ANSI C respectively), and within a certain timeframe projects were developed alongside. Thus the resulting redirect would be eligible for deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #2. BTW, the same problem doesn't allow to merge these two. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. See above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QubeOS

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

Only one source, which does not establish notability. No further sources found. Also, the external links seem to point to a spam site and a completely unrelated project. Keφr (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: there are several sources in Italian: QubeOS, sistema operativo online che parla Italiano, Un'applicazione nel Mac App Store conferma l'esistenza di Google Drive. I don't know Italian, thus I can't assert the notability based on these sources, but this seems to be above the normal amount of mention such projects receive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Google translations, these appear to be passing mentions at best. --Kvng (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently it's an Italian thing. Found one reliable independent ref [15] and few others less reliable [16], [17], [18]. --Kvng (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid the sources you listed might not be reliable at all, and I am not even sure whether they discuss anything related to the original subject of the article. Jumping from a DOS-based GUI to a so-called "cloud computing" environment is a pretty huge leap. The only source which establishes the link between those two is the OSnews article, and I really doubt the reliability of that site. Isn't OSnews a site where anyone can submit content, which later just gets "approved" by some kind of editing staff? Also, notice that some of the websites you listed link to a website with the domain name "qube-os.com" and not "qubeos.com". Only the former seems to be registered by Italians. So I think that any content we might write based on all these sources would be misinformation. Keφr (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OSNews is generally considered reliable source in prior AfDs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. It looks like qubeos.com didn't always look like the output of SCIgen. Still, that Italian thing seems to be a completely different project. There is also this: [19]. But I believe it is mostly shallow coverage, not allowing to write anything about any technical details of this desktop environment. And the project is dead now, so it is very unlikely that such sources will appear in the future. It had its two minutes of fame, and nothing beyond that. Keφr (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - In fact my "weak keep" was supposed to mean "keep if there is enough information for an article". For now I don't see anything that could be used to produce encyclopedic content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Dmitrij, it should be noted that you write for OSNews, so you are not necessarily unbiased! Looking at the OSNews article, most of the references are either from OSNews itself, or minor coverage - so I might look at that article and sourcing in a bit more detail, to see how notable it is, or how reliable it is (I can't see any discussion about this at the notability notice board)! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Just barely, but meeting WP:GNG per:

Eugenia Loli-Queru (2001-08-31). "Enter the Qube, a New Graphics Environment for CLI OSes". Retrieved 2008-06-21.
Loli, Eugenia (August 30, 2001). "Qube Launches Developer's Web Site". OS News. Retrieved July 27, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, we already found these. I claim that this is not enough material to write anything encyclopædic, and User:Czarkoff seems to agree. I state that this means the article should be deleted. We are talking about three sentences anyway; if sensible sources were to be found, it would not be any harder to recreate the article. Still, I welcome further input. The worst outcome would be "no consensus". Keφr (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm entitled to my own !vote, which is based upon notability guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note, that per WP:GNG "[m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", and in this case both items are by the same person and are published by the same organization, with the only difference that one of them, being an interview, is not genuinely independent. — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have two topics for the possible articles under "QubeOS" name:

DOS shell has some primary sources, two short OSNews articles on it and (arguably) some historical significance. In my opinion the DOS shell is worth mention, though we evidently hit the verifiability bottleneck here: nearly no content can be written without original research, and there is no hope to see some new references.
In-browser OS has only a bunch of blog posts on it (those links I posted and "few others less reliable" by Kvng). Overall it doesn't seem to be worth mention due to the lack of long-term notability: the sources are substandard, and all belong to category "look at this strange beast, did you know it ever existed?", which I would take for implication of lack of notability.

Anyway, I strongly oppose a single article on both of these quite distinct topics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: in case if closure is not followed by deletion, please specify the topic of the article that was kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in the sources does not seem to me to be sufficient to demonstrate the notability of this product. The first source is mainly an interview (and so does not meet the 'independence' criteria), the second is minor coverage (and in software terms, pretty much a standard announcement!). I see nothing to show that this product meets the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this Taiwan ref from 2001 too, if that's any help. -- Trevj (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be a rough and inaccurate summary of interview by OSNews. At least I never saw another mention of QubeOS (desktop shell) running on Linux. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  In that case... Merge to FreeDOS, per WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG and the few sources that have been identified. -- Trevj (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  To merge it to FreeDOS, there should be some bi-directional connection between these two. While QubeOS's home page explicitly states "for FreeDOS", it seems to miss from FreeDOS repository. In fact this connection existed via Doscore distribution of FreeDOS, but this distribution itself appears to not be mentioned in reliable sources at all. In effect, this now discontinued project struggled with lack of mention throughout its life. I started History of graphical user interfaces for DOS userspace draft. Probably I could cope with other individually non-notable DOS GUIs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is also a stub that links to another recently deleted Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds. A check of the linked SourceForge page indicates that the project is inactive; download stats from SourceForge indicate that it has been downloaded a relatively low 350 times in 2012.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but retain list-item at Qube (disambiguation). --→gab 24dot grab← 15:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the purpose of that? Disambiguation pages are by their very nature a list of links to other articles - if there is no article, there should be no link on a disambiguation page. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, per WP:DABENTRY: An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation. -- Trevj (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic davis

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

Non-notable musician. Citations show signs of some local coverage from his hometown in Lansing, Michigan, and trivial mentions (listed as a member of the band backing some other singer, etc) but nothing that approaches the requirements of WP:BAND or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and believe that some comments herein were as to just an early draft that was saved. Since that draft this article has been much more fully established with numerous cites from large media (not just local sources) articles, websites and even books and mentions are not just at the periphery of those sources to the point that it does meet the requirements. Moreover, Mr. Davis has for some time been included on Jack White's wikipedia page but it lacks a wiki link for Mr. Davis. Jjjssswiki^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Davis (aka Dominic Suchyta) is a childhood friend of Jack White, and has been quoted in several biographies of White. This does not make Davis notable. He has also been mentioned in passing in several articles (every one of which Jjjssswiki seems to be intent to cite) as being involved in White's project to record some previously unrecorded Hank Williams tunes. This project appears notable because of White's collaboration with Bob Dylan. Davis' role as the bass player in the ensemble does not appear notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There does seem concerns about notability here. There are an excess of cites, but all I looked at either only mention Davis in passing (as a credited musician on a recording, for instance) or don't actually mention him at all. If he is notable, where are the articles about specifically him? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not disagree more that Dominic Davis does not meet Wikipedia's notable requirements. He is certainly notable be it as the bass player on a major world tour as part of the Buzzardos with Jack White, a popular an accomplished artist, or his work on Saturday Night Live, David Letterman, Conan, the Colbert Report, or his work with Rock and Roll Hall of Fame artist Wanda Jackson or with Jeff Daniels. Further, I see numerous good sources, not just local media (as the first entry states), like MTV, Rolling Stone, the UK newspaper the Guardian, Reuters, the Associated Press and the Detroit Free Press as well as a number of books. I am surprised his notability is even being raised as an issue. michigan51—Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC) — michigan51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sock -- see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jjjssswiki.[reply]

Comment. To state "standing in the back with a bass" as WikiDan61 comments (the user who actually nominated this page for deletion and well as other pages written by the same author) shows a lack of respect for the contribution by this artist and attempts to belittle him, violating one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia to be respectful and civil. It makes one wonder if some sort of discrimination is at work here especially considering many, many far less accomplished artists have Wiki pages of their own yet this page being argued for deletion. As described in the article, he is a lifelong musician that not only performs with many different top artists (not just Jack White) on major international tours which include numerous national TV performances, but records with them as well. To think that the only thing that is "notable" in music is just the headliner is to seriously misunderstand music and art. Wiki clearly does not take that view as many artists that are not headliners have their own wiki page and are given proper respect. Behind every headliner is a host of very talented artists working to make the headliner what they are and that does make many of them notable, particularly if the projects on which they work are as high profile as those of this artist. And in no way is Rolling Stone, MTV, the AP, Reuters and the rest “local coverage”. And when notability was questioned here, other large media sources were added, some of which have just this artist as the topic and interviewee, but the response from WikiDan61 was to criticize that for oversourcing. To insultingly describe him as "standing in the back" shows that this artist's musical talents, actually playing the bass - not just standing there holding it like some buffoon, are not properly being considered. It would be a shame if this contorted view of music and art or, worse, some sort of discrimination, were to have a role in removing clearly noteworthy artists from having a Wikipedia page. Jjjssswiki (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jjjssswiki is strongly urged to review Wikipedia's notability guidelines and then to provide references that indicate that Davis meets any of these guidelines. To be sure, no music star or notable personality in any field achieves success alone; that does not mean that every person supporting that star is also notable. And I will apologize if my comments were interpreted as disparaging of Davis' talents; they were not intended as such. However, discussions here need to be kept to guidelines, not personal feelings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that this article about Dominic John Davis was proposed for deletion. I completely agree that there are more than several notable requirements listed in this article. Dominic Davis' musical accomplishments and talents are well documented here using reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia readers, especially music professional and fans such as myself, will find this article informative and interesting. Bapplebaum2012 (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) — Bapplebaum2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jjjssswiki[reply]

Delete since a sample of article's cites was bereft of appropriate coverage -- and I'm certainly not going to wade through them all. If the bloviators above will point to notability-lending coverage instead sustained cries of "disrespect" and so on, I'll change my mind. EEng (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eeng's comments are precisely what I would have said. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Smith

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

Although this is a well-written article, with plenty of varied sources and nice photographs, I fail to see how this is anything but a WP:ONEEVENT, which is unfortunately, the subjects death which makes seems very much like a memorial to me. Most of the sources are obituaries (or similiar). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the article's creator, I will repeat the comment I previously made on the article's talk page: "I have been writing a long series of articles about aquanauts who served as NEEMO crew members, but this is admittedly not necessarily enough by itself to establish notability. As can be seen from the list of references, Smith's death has been discussed in a major published work of non-fiction (Ben Hellwarth's Sealab) and in multiple media sources. Moreover, although there have been far more people who have qualified as aquanauts than as astronauts over the decades, to my knowledge only three aquanauts have ever died as a result of participating in an underwater habitat program: Berry L. Cannon, Joachim Wendler and Smith. The rarity of this event may go some way toward suggesting notability, while Smith's participation in NEEMO 13 may make WP:ONEEVENT less applicable." Gildir (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ONEEVENT and NOTMEMORIAL fit the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Death of Dewey Smith, as per Death of Caylee Anthony, Trial of Xiao Zhen, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the death (and investigation) a notable event in the progression of diving safety? If so, move per Stuartyeates. If not, it's WP:ONEEVENT, no matter how tragic.BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not move to Death; there is much material here that is in no way a memorial. It is almost identical, in every way that matters to WP rules (I am speaking of Notability in particular), to another article kept at AfD years ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes Milowka. This is not an OTHERSTUFF reference; the rationales of AfD editors at the previous discussion are relevant to this discussion on a similar topic. Anarchangel (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not wrong, every afd merits their own arguments and results? Something like that? (WP:WAX?) Nor sure, but still, I don't think you should compare this with that, no matter how similar they are... Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT--SimonKnowsAll (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not entirely about subjects death, so a move to a page about his death should be ruled out. Subject is notable in his own way. Plenty of sources. Does not seem like a WP:ONEEVENT to me. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While this article would qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 since it appears to have been re-created after a similar article was deleted just a few months ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Projects .NET (2nd nomination), I note that the extensive coverage in the Giganom and CBS News would be sufficient to pass WP:CORP. Most of the other sources are abysmal (trivial mentions, promotional, or company blurbs) and add no value whatsoever. Although the apparent SPA activity is disturbing, I nevertheless commend them for submitting valid arguments rather than simply registering a vote.

Disclaimer: I am a certified PMP myself, but I have no interest in this or any other project management product. I understand that this closure may be controversial and I do not object to being overturned at WP:DRV if someone deems it appropriate to have this closure reviewed there. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy projects

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

Article has links which are primarily from non-reputable sources. Also 3/4 of the references in this article contain nothing that the article actually says. Removing references would likely result in this article falling under G11 as advertising. Keystoner idin (speak) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do realize that I nominated this article quite fast, but the misleading of links presents this as a possible non-notable company.Keystoner idin (speak) 21:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check sources - The article is well sourced. The blurb at [20] says that the FBI actually bought this company? Most of the references I've never even heard of. If the sources are good, then its a keep from me. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP – Each reference correlates to specific data taken from the referenced source and used in the article text. Most of the reference titles are business software trade press that appear to be reputable sources. Celtechm (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC) (Article Author)[reply]

Comment: Citation 4 makes no mention of Saas,Citation 5 makes no indication of Gannt Charts,There is no Citation for the original release date, although it is said to be 2004. Seems that bit's and pieces of information were stripped from the sources. Seems like this could be a MAJOR violation of references.Keystoner idin (speak) 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are fair points for clarification. To elaborate: Citation 4 is an article published in 2009 before the terminology "SaaS" was widespread, so it does not use that acronym. Instead the article mentions a delivery mechanism of "Hosted" software and goes on to state that "You can also opt to install EasyProjects.net’s software on your own servers". The wording in the Wiki article is meant to make this clear for readers by integrating current terminology and linking to an existing Wiki page that explains this mechanism. The Citation 5 source lists features as "message boards, issue and request tracking, statistics and reports, email notifications, and more." I replaced "and more" (Which sounded too 'promotional' for Wiki) with "and Gantt Charts" (which is shown in other references). I can move the reference point back 3 words if necessary. There is no citation for the original SW release date because it came from a source that I chose not to cite, probably due to unsuitable reference (Blog) or self-publish (company website or news release) reasons. Celtechm (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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} 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only reference in the article that can be used for determining notability is a gigaom article. Others are either completely unreliable or lack depth (or both typically). I failed to find another acceptable source in the wild (though I probably gave up too soon due to the overwhelming about of splogs on topic and fairly generic name). Overall, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources to validate this article's inclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since I'm not sure that the sources have been parsed carefully. There are bad sources there, but there's also the gigaom, the BNET article, and a cursory search also came up with this TechVibes piece. It just needs a little more work, but it almost certainly meets WP:CORP. Per WP:BURDEN: It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. This isn't BLP. Arghonaut (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User:Arghonaut is a brand new account and has few other minor contributions to Wikipedia, leading to the possibility that they are a WP:SPA and in this case on behalf of promotion of a company. -- LoudHoward (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is just a re-list of an article that has been previously deleted in the past a number of times, under the name Easy Projects .NET. Previous nominations all resulted in deletion citing lack of notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT — LoudHowie —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note / Question LoudHowie appears to have conflict of interest. Minor edit history... No edits since 2009 and then 7 AFD nominations for project management SW pages in one day in 2012. Possible Sockpuppet? Celtechm (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't see the content of previous article(s), so I can't discuss their content or references. I did note that the 2009 AFD was closed as "No Consensus" and only the 2012 was closed for deletion. It does appear, from the commentary in the 2012 deletion discussion log, that the topic is this same SW, but based on the comments in the AFD inputs, there must have been a very different set of references. All that aside, taking This article on its own merits, I believe the references here (especially FBI, Gigaom, VentureBeat (of which I only listed one of many pages), PM Network, and CBS) prove notability. Celtechm (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFAIR, the three references in previous article were BNET, gigaom and killerstartup from this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article that has been deleted for lack of notability does not preclude the creation of another page about the same topic if the current sources are relevant and notable. I haven't studied this software in depth but just going through WP:NSOFT I see that simply saying " "non notable" and "unreferenced" is not a valid criteria for deletion." I went through the resources suggested by WP:NSOFT and Easy Projects comes up in several books (via Google Books) like "42 Rules for Successful Collaboration" , "Managing for Dummies" , and "The Complete Guide to Project Management for New Managers and Manager Assistants" , as well as a review published by the FBI showing that they are using this product for one of their units and planning to adopt it for another one. Additionally, Easy Projects comes up in 16 results from Google Scholar including a US patent application. Finally, when it comes to project management software, as a project manager I can tell you that sources like the PM Network Magazine (biggest publication for the industry), GigaOm and CBS News are quite notable sources. The article may need better referencing but given the sources out there, I think there is enough to work with to bring it up to the standards of Wikipedia. Maybe instead of pure deletion nominations, we can give the page creator some constructive criticism? --Tyrea (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Tyrea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Trivial mentions and patent applications (as well as already acquired patents) don't help with notability. CBS severely lacks depth: by no standard it can be called "significant coverage" for a complex web application. Given the size of industry, I doubt that there was any plan to implement project manager that wasn't covered in PM Network Magazine, but Wikipedia is not a directory. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Tyrea has no other contributions to Wikipedia, leading to the possibility that they are a WP:SPA and in this case on behalf of promotion of a company. -- LoudHoward (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There are about 140 PM software titles in Wikipedia alone, per Comparison_of_project-management_software. Authors have 100s of SW titles they can write about for any article on PM SW. With this fragmentation of the market, it means that any meaningful coverage of a title in RS (such as those referenced here) is (in my opinion) significant. Celtechm (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note Celtechm is the original author of the article in question, possibility of WP:CONFLICT, WP:SELFPROMOTE or on behalf of client. -- LoudHoward (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I can admit to being involved with Easy Projects, however briefly. I wasn't sure if people who know Easy Projects in real life were allowed to chime in with this discussion, so I figured, given the forces at play like LoudHoward, a product as established as Easy Projects in the project management industry deserved a bit more support. I now see that I have made a mistake as per the relatively complex rules of Wikipedia editing, which are new to me, and for that I apologize. Having said that, I would be very happy if LoudHowie would elaborate on his agenda as well, since his account clearly comes across as a WP:SPA with the goal of keeping new project management software off Wikipedia. See here his comments from six months ago for Apollo and GlassCubes both of which are legitimate products in the industry. A simple Google search of his username also reveals this page, which shows further evidence of his deliberate pursuit of project management software articles. After six months of inactivity, he comes back to go after another project management software. Could there be a WP:CONFLICT in there? --Tyrea (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know LoudHoward's agenda, but my certainly includes keeping project management web services off Wikipedia, as respective articles nearly unanimously violate WP:N and WP:NOT. (Though my agenda mentions the special exceptions for sufficiently referenced articles, having at least snowball's chance in hell). — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Since when did AfD turn into personal attacks? WP:AFDEQ All I did was highlight a few facts for those editors who are also looking to contribute to this discussion. It's fine if you are involved with the software in question, that's not the issue here. I was simply pointing that fact out as a possibility because it is a driver in justifying your reasoning. You should have disclosed your vested interest in this article as per WP:DISCUSSAFD. As for myself, yes I am a PMP Project Manager and have been for the past 6 years. I am not affiliated with any product, but I do have an interest in following software and PM articles on Wikipedia. I make contributions when I have free time, but this discussion is not a place to attack my contributions to Wikipedia simply because you are not happy with the fact that I mentioned that some editors in this AfD might be WP:SPA. I have made all of the points I wanted to make in this discussion in regards to the AfD. --LoudHoward (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toolsverse ETL Framework

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

Non-notable software. No other coverage except this article, which borders on spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, scanning Google's bringing up no external sources, fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and informative. It states it is released this July so no wonder there is a little to none of external coverage Maksym contrib (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Maksym contrib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, spam would be introducing a non-relevant product,service, or topic into an established area (i.e. ETL frameworks in this case). This is simply a new software package, and there are other such packages listed on the ETL frameworks page that are not up for deletion. The person who said that this is spam actually is the one generating spam, as I would wager that he/she works for one of the other companies represented on the ETL frameworks page. Regarding a lack of external sources, isn't this a circular argument? If one introduces a new software package completely relevant to the given area, it may take time for an external source structure to grow. Let's give it a chance to do that weslipschultz (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)— weslipschultz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, It is an info on a newly released product and as such surely warrants its place here. And I completely agree - requiring external coverage right after the realease does not sound right. serge66 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)— serge66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of topic's notability in the article, and search returns nothing even remotely similar to reliable sources independent of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by others the 'notability' is not something which can happen overnight. Also in no way it is indication that article in question describes something which has no place in Wikipedia. The policy should guard against spam or blatant advertising, not ligimit articles about new open-source products. I'm asking powers that be to give it a time and let it be. OlenaSherbinin (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — OlenaSherbinin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment No, notability does not happen overnight. It takes time, and this product was only released this week. But lack of notability very much is an indication that this topic should not yet be covered at Wikipedia, because lack of notability means there are no independent sources by which to verify the information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation in the future if that changes but this really does appear to be a case fo jumping the gun on creating a Wikipedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedily deleted as promotional. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The witch hunter's amulet

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

Non-notable (self-published) book by non-notable author. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non notable, found in only two libraries, apparently self-published. I'd urge a snow closure for this, or perhaps a speedy as G11, since it can have no purpose but promoting the book DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I denied two speedies on this one, DGG, and thought long and hard about db-spam but decided against it considering the tone and the indirectness of the link--it didn't lead immediately to a button that says "buy the book". But if you wanted to tag it as such I could not object. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are no sources out there that would show notability for this indie book. As soon as there's enough votes to justify a snow close, I suggest snow closing since there's not a chance that this will survive.
Delete I found one review in an independent source, but that's nowhere near enough to pass NBOOK. Should add that it isn't self-published; CM publishing has a low editorial bar but they are a legitimate indy publisher. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should have looked harder--thanks for that, Yunshui. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Dash Disick

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

This is a child on a reality television show who is only notable because his parents put him there. Any sources discussing him only do so in relation to his parents. I would suggest merging to the parents' page or the show page and redirecting this title. ... discospinster _talk 03:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not individually notable, unlikely that a 2-year-old toddler could ever be notable in his own right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most certainly fails the notability guideline for biographies. And being the child of someone famous is not an indicator of notability. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is solely sourced to his parents and tabloid sources in awe solely because of his lineage. WP:NOTINHERITED. No redirect as most people who don't read tabloid media have no idea who this child is in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 06:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not comfortable merging, since the article is uncited. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder Park, WTAMU

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

Baseball fields on college campuses are rarely notable, and this one has no references to prove otherwise. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing any reason to keep this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this facility meets WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to West Texas A&M University, which currently says nothing about the baseball team or its facilities, and could use the content. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Career Group

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 04:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject appears to fail WP:ARTSPAM and WP:CORP. References consist of alphabetical listing with trivial coverage, ie citing a review on Yelp. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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} 03:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like-engirding

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

Unsourced and orphaned article. Nothing to find about this in reliable independent sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if there are more sources found, it makes sense to merge into Astrological sign, which discusses other divisions like the 4 elements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if more sources are not found, and it remains unsourced then we can't determine if it's WP:OR or not and the article should probably be delete it rather than merge it. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Babylonian astronomy or Astrological sign. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention at all in reliable independent sources per Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches. OR based on unreliable in-universe sources only. Nothing worth merging to any other article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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} 02:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very few sources and nothing major. The article has been orphaned since 2009. If it was that notable, someone would have cleaned it up and removed the maintenance tag by now. --SimonKnowsAll (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to say, just because it was "orphaned since 2009", doesn't merit a delete. There are cases of pages which have been orphaned for very long, but that those not rule out the possibility of them being notable, no matter what. If no one cleaned it up, it could be because nobody saw it, not because it was not notable. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mozhdah Jamalzadah

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

I'm really not seeing anything in the way of notability here. This person isn't signed to a notable record company, and doesn't have any hits anywhere; in short, nothing satisfying NMUSIC The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 16:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 00:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I almost gave up on this one, but found a clue or two at the Fa.wiki article that led me to a CNN article, the singer got a year-or-so small burst of coverage in high-profile news outlets (CNN, Time, Macleans, etc.) as "The Oprah of Afghanistan". I've added five articles, at least three of which I consider rising to "significant coverage", and so WP:GNG. I'm still a bit concerned that this was nearly a one-note wonder, but balancing that against even a few solid sources and the danger of cultural bias, I'm going to go with a keep here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC per [21], [22], [23], [24]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the fa.wiki material. These can be tough, but it seems to pass. Arghonaut (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kodenshi America, Inc.

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

Not notable, fails WP:CORP, no meaningful GNews/GHits, no reliable sources found. Brought to AfD after creator and IP keep removing CSD tags. GregJackP Boomer! 02:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I don't understand how closed of a community that Wikipedia is. This article is about the American Office of a near 1 Billion Dollar Company. It explains their impact to the environment with the RoHs certification, the history of the parent companies. There are plenty of sources posted under references, please look. Many are independent. I really don't see what the issue was. I removed tags only because I entered stuff on the talk page, confirming we didn't see it that way and/or made appropriate changes. From my understanding that is something we can do. Instead of threatening and making our lives difficult, it would be a lot easier for you to help us get something up to your high level of standard instead of just deleting our hard research. That would make more sense and be more productive. People have a right to know who Kodenshi America is. They are listed on several other Wikipedia pages such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_device_fabrication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACompact_Disc%2FArchive_2
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang
http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D9%86%E2%80%8C%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF?match=pl

Search for Kodenshi and you will find them or their parts listed on all those pages. It only makes sense to have them listed in Wikipedia.
Thank you for listening to me and for consideration. Dstrausser83 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of the refs listed in the article, the 5 www.auk.co.kr refs do not mention Kodenshi at all, 2 are self published (www.kodenshi.co.jp), www.etnews.com is a trivial mention of the parent company in an article that focuses on a sensor, www.ceatec.com is an exhibitor listing, and www.rohsguide.com is a compliance article that also does not mention Kodenshi at all. None are reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article, Kodenshi America. People may have a right to know about Kodenshi, but that does not mean that Wikipedia is the proper place. Unless you can show notability in reliable sources, the article should be deleted. GregJackP Boomer! 11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ (Comment) - Had you took time to actually read this article and not just delete it, you will find that the references listed for www.auk.co.kr are valid as they show the product line for Kodenshi America, Inc., because AUK Corp is the parent company of Kodenshi America, Inc. The sources at Kodenshi.co.jp are not self published as this article is for the American Company of Kodenshi America,Inc., the Kodenshi.co.jp is done by the Japanese Company. The etnews.com site is valid because Kodenshi America, Inc. develops sensors. Please be knowledgeable about the subject you are trying to delete. The etnews.com article is perhaps one of the most influential articles as it describes the iRobot like sensors that Kodenshi AUK Corp has developed at 50% cheaper than anybody else in Korea which is a huge step forward technology wise. This is an extremely important reference which you call a "trivial mention". Once again, had you been knowledgeable in the subject, you will have seen how important that article is and how big of news that was in the optoelectronics community. The createc.com is showing where you can visit their exhibit, and lastly the rohsguide.com reference was listed to show the standards of the RohS Certificate (i.e. the environmental impact section that we talk about in the artcle) that Kodenshi America, Inc. holds and stands by. You have failed to acknowledge the other listings that I have mentioned within Wikipedia itself showing that Kodenshi is RELEVANTLY mentioned on other Wikipedia pages and therefore deserving of a page so that readers of other articles can know what Kodenshi America, Inc. is. I do not understand why you want to censor the web. This is about being open & sharing information. I hope I have addressed your concerns. Please be more open minded. Thank you. P.S. I have updated the reference section to show the 4 Wikipedia pages as well. Dstrausser83 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop with personal attacks and just focus on the issues. Any ref has to be independent - see WP:RS - and a parent company (AUK) or sister company (Kodenshi.jp) are not. They are considered to be WP:SPS. Etnews is a trivial mention, as it discusses the Korean branch of the company, not the US branch. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as refs to prove notability, and further, I note that the "relevant" mention was added by you just before this AfD process (see here). Finally, this is not about being "open & sharing information", it is about Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no personal attacks going on. Just pure observations of your actions. Etnews is relevant because our R&D department helped developed that and it is located in Korea with the rest of the Kodenshi family. Why are you fighting so hard? You still have not answered the questions regarding the other Wikipedia mentions of our company and people's right to know who we are. Seems like you are ignoring that. Dstrausser83 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ (Comment) - To further assist in the "references" matter, I included some more independent links for Kodenshi & AUK. Please see references added below:
Kodenshi Families: http://www.kodenshiauk.com/eng/sub02_0101.asp?KIND3=10
Stock Quote for Kodenshi America, Inc.'s Parent Company: AUK Corp http://in.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=017900.KS
Company Information for Kodenshi America, Inc.'s Parent Company: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=017900:KS
Company Description for Kodenshi America, Inc.'s Parent Company: AUK Corp: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot_article.asp?ticker=017900:KS
Kodenshi America, Inc.'s Data Sheets: http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/aukcorp/1/
Thank you. Dstrausser83 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Struck multiple "keep" !votes from User:Dstrausser83. You're only allowed one !vote in AfD discussions, but please feel free to Comment as much as you would like! Thanks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't realize how that works. My fault. Dstrausser83 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy and poorly sourced, best to simply blow it up and start over. Parent company Kodenshi is probably notable, but I can't find decent sources in English. Hairhorn (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ORG indicates we shouldn't really have articles on sub-units of an organisation unless they have substantial sources about them. It would seem to me that a better approach to developing this material would be to create an article about the parent company and any significant sourceable information on sub-units could be added to the article in the parent company. Having said that, this article is heavily promotional / non-neutral in tone and I would worry that a parent article created by the same editor would suffer the same fate. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, rename, or delete as appropriate. We have deleted even large divisions of major corporations, per WP:OUTCOMES. Except for the best-known brand names, or wholly-owned subsidiaries of government-owned companies, we have deleted many (if not most) smaller divisions of companies. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Kodenshi AUK (if that is the official name of the parent), adding the necessary information. I agree that our general practice is to make one good article for the parent company and all its branches. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Hairhorn gets it 100% right in saying "best to simply blow it up and start over". An article with such content as, for example, "With its three decades of experience in the electrical component field, Kodenshi AUK has been continually integrating green campaigns, in which the manufacturing of its appliaces does not release harmful chemicals into the environment. Kodenshi AUK realizes its brand value, future value, and product value with its products." is promotional. If someone can produce sources that show the parent company to be notable, then a new, non-promotional article can be written about that company. If, as DGG suggests, this article were moved, then it would have to be completely rewritten, both to address the promotion and other issues with this article, and to convert it from being focussed on one branch to being focussed on the parent company. It is difficult to see the advantage of doing it that way, rather than taking Hairhorn's suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can read similarly cogent reasoning at Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, which is where I borrowed the expression from. Hairhorn (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Hogan

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

Not notable. A bit of a vanity piece created by an SPA. Sourcing is weak and local only, "PI: KIRO 7's Jenni Hogan a Traffic and Twitter Hottie" and other fluffities. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KIRO-TV. Giant Snowman 14:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

she was the subject of a Forbes interview and listed as the most followed local female TV journalist on Twitter and Facebook in America and was named as one of the top female geeks in the world by the Huffington Post. and she did a local show so popular across social networks that the #social7 hashtag trended both nationally and worldwide. -- I wouldnt say that that level of coverage was "significant" (although i have seen articles kept on much much less coverage) but those sources were from only the first two pages of google news so there may be more. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wishes to add those then the article may recieve more viability to survive. We could change it to a redirect as mentioned above until someone does wish to add them in the future. This way the history will be preserved.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with a redirect.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or a delete for that matter- additional barely notable BLPs to maintain doesnt do the project any good. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that a redirect would save some work if she ever wins the Stanley Cup or a Formula 1 race type thing. She is young and has time to become more notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Seattle P-I piece showing in the footnotes plus THIS FORBES PIECE plus her very public position as a television news personality clears the General Notability Guideline for this subject, in my opinion. Continued fluff removal is necessary (I just whacked the bit on the names of her family dogs...) but this is an editorial question, not a notability question. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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} 02:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:BASIC per [25], [26]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamer Shaaban

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines, is obviously written by subject and used as advertising. Ancientworldnow (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Ancientworldnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is any notability here it's in the film that went viral, not in the computer programer who made it. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, but that opinion seems at odds with WP:CREATIVE, the guideline which tells us that the person primarily responsible for creating a notable work is themselves notable for that creation. No creator, no notable creation... the two being inter-twinned without running afoul of WP:INHERITED. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject is notable. Relevant searches suggest this fact. Resident50 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article appears to be written by amateur. Relevant searches do suggest the subject is notable. Worldgoeson 12:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldgoeson (talk • contribs) — Worldgoeson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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} 02:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue WP:CLEANUP. The nominator's very first contributon to Wikipedia was malforming this AFD nomnination.[27][28] One need not agree with the message of his viral video, but searches show that both the subject and his works have been the recipient of coverage in multiple reliable source.[29] WP:N is met. What is required is the addressing of issues through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just needs cleanup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Research

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

Non-notable corporation. No evidence of significant third-party coverage. The single citation provided that might hint at notability is the "Computerworld Honors Program", until one realizes that Computerworld honored 150 companies in 2009.[30] All other citations are from commercial sources (either the company's own website or websites of clients or partners). The description of this company as a "geophysics and aviation" company is misleading: while it uses geophysics and aviation equipment in its mission, it is neither a developer or vendor of such equipment. Its primary mission appears to be to search for unexploded ordinance at former military installations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth coverage by reliable independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is currently under investigation for major fraud as well as having over $160 million in contracts awarded since 2004. See http://www.registerguard.com/web/updates/28417796-55/sky-hodgson-research-lindbom-company.html.csp (plus, the article's the 2nd most popular article on the Register-Guard right now)
Comment The case is being investigated by a "major fraud unit"; this does not make the alleged crime a major fraud. The case has only been covered by the local newspaper.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasons that 108.21.78.136 listed. To WikiDan61: oh please. A multimillion dollar international company is investigated by a major fraud unit of the United States Government and has their offices raided, guns blazing, while the story of the fraud rockets up to become the number-one story on the website of a famous newspaper? I think that's notable enough to merit a small Wikipedia page. Seriously. Don't you have better things to do than harass newbies and criticize their work? [edit: Whoa! The "delete" discussion is officially invalid. Stories by the AP, major international papers, local papers, online papers, and more: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/92515--ore-defense-contractor-target-of-investigation and http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120725/NEWS/207250332/-1/NEWSMAP and http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jf91fRJcgMKTPppD9USG4SDL0ZfQ?docId=cd25695dce3c45f3a15ef2a179eceb2c and http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/federal-investigation-looks-at-oregon-defense-contractors-bids-for-bombing-range-surveys/2012/07/25/gJQAHd7E9W_story.html] StereotypicalApps (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything in this story (yes, I said this - these are all copies of the same AP story) about "blazing guns". And of which "famous newspaper" is this the number one story? It's an investigation, something the US government does all the time. If the allegations are true, this would be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AP story is 20 hours old, while the Register-Guard story is a few days old. The Register-Guard story is the one that rocketed up to 1st place on the Register-Guard's list of most popular articles, and WP:ONEEVENT has nothing to do with this! WP:ONEEVENT is for *people* that are involved in a single event. This is a major international company, making headlines for fraud, major news stories, and headlines like "Sex, booze, Bali: Omaha corps manager at center of probe". There's even a comment from a senator of **a state the company doesn't have offices in** already. The blazing guns - that's something I heard from a previous employee of the company. The U.S. Government does conduct investigations all the time, but not nearly as often at this level. Seriously: If this isn't news, I don't know what is news. Several newspapers, international scandal, $160 *million* scammed out of the U.S. Government? I'd really like to see what you consider a major news story, if this isn't one. Do you not have better things to do than harass newcomers to Wikipedia? StereotypicalApps (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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} 01:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The story is obviously news. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!
Comment To WikiDan61: I've calmed down a bit and I've reversed my stance. Feel free to delete the page; when there is more media attention in a bit I might reanimate it. Thanks, StereotypicalApps (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always ask for a WP:REFUND, which would be entirely appropiate if this started to get major coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several sources that seem to meet GNG: From the Mail Tribune: [31] [32] [33] [34] Ashland Daily Tidings: [35] Baltimore Sun: [36] Canadian Press: [37] Toohool (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rovers Return Inn

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

Article lacks verifiable citations, having only two total for several pages of text. It contains predominantly original research in the form of fans watching the show and writing here their conclusions about the inn. Most importantly, the article lacks any indication of real world notability for this fictional establishment, much less sources to back up such a claim if there were one. -- Selket ^Talk 22:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banham, Martin (1995). The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. Cambridge University Press. p. 1067. ISBN 9780521434379. The Rovers Return must be the best known pub in the country.

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- And if the article said something like that with a discussion of its significance in the real world (with multiple, independent, reliable sources) , I would not have nominated it. Instead the article has in-universe history that starts: "The Rover's Return (with an apostrophe) was opened in 1902, on the newly built Coronation St (1902 being Coronation year for Edward VII, hence its name)," as just an example. This article belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. -- Selket ^Talk 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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} 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom is right that article is poorly introduced and poorly referenced. However these are matters for editing, not grounds for deletion. The rules for notability are that sources exist, not that editors have troubled to include them. The Coronation Street pub is certainly notable. (Daily) Telegraph. Globe and Mail. A search for "Rovers Return" (without "Inn") coupled with "Coronation Street" gets many more News hits, by the way. Mirror. Independent. The Sun. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extremely notable British TV institution, has even been the subject of an entire dedicated book published by a mainstream publisher: [38]. I agree, though, that the article needs a lot of work..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Coronation Street - I can't find any obvious references in reliable sources. I have done a search for "rovers return" and the majority of the hits are football related (ie: a footballer returning to a club such as Blackburn Rovers). There is also another, real, Rovers Return Inn in Ghana, which seems to get more hits. While I can't dispute that the Rovers Return is one of the most well known fictional pubs in the UK (only the Queen Vic in Eastenders comes close), there doesn't appear to be enough notability for it to stand on its own. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the book linked by ChrisTheDude, and these 622 books? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's the most famous fictional pub, so is of significance.—A bit iffy (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not watch Coronation Street, but it is a popular and very long-running ITV soap opera. I understand there is even a tourist attraction, related to the soap. It would be helpful if fact (about the alleged precursor or inspiration) and fiction (from the soap) were more clearly separated. In view of the prominence of the series, the article is probably justified in existing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft