Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 December	9 December >

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 redirect to Lightstreamer. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weswit

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

Primary sourced article about an apparently non-notable company. No indication of significance justifying an encyclopedia article. - Mr X 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — my searches yielded results mostly from PR sources, mostly in the recent past. This company fails WP:CORPDEPTH at present, though it may be just WP:TOOSOON. JFHJr (㊟) 03:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Each year Gartner, a well known independent information technology research firm, identifies new "Cool Vendors" in key technology areas and publishes a series of research reports highlighting these innovative vendors and their products and services. Weswit has been mentioned and analyzed in the report "Cool Vendors in Application and Integration Platforms, 2012", by Massimo Pezzini and Jess Thompson, published on 11 April 2012. The report's summary, table of contents, and download options are available on this page.
In addition to the above, Weswit was mentioned in the press in 2007, when TIBCO Software announced an OEM agreement with Weswit. For example, eWeek's journalist Darryl K. Taft mentioned Weswit for this. Original eWeek's article is available from Google webcache and as PDF from TIBCO.93.50.118.190 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 4 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lightstreamer. Notable product, but the company itself has no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and doesn't seem to be notable yet per WP:COMPANY. The only coverage I can see of the Gartner "Cool Vendors" announcement online is press releases. If they release other notable products and start to get more substantial coverage, then an article about them might be split off. Altered Walter (talk) 20:23, 14 December 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. This was a careful balancing act - if she was indeed more notable than just German titleholder, then this could likely remain. However, those additional aspects of notability are unsourced, and I cannot even find any offline resources to confirm. As such, this is also a poorly-sourced WP:BLP in addition to the WP:TOOSOON and non-WP:GNG aspects. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Endemann

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO needs to win Miss Universe - WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I stated with Jacques Christela. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, as with other Miss Universe contestant articles without notability elsewhere. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning a national major beauty title and representing her nation in a prestigeous beauty pageant trumps ONEEVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sang'gre Habagat above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this the same Alicia Endemann who is also a singer and (apparently very minor) actress who apparently was in something called House of Anubis? I was gonna say delete, but if this is the same person, these collective reasons (which individually probably aren't enough to make her notable, but together, add up) may offer some justification for a small article summarising her career. If this is just a pretty girl with the same name, then delete the article and do so for all beauty pageant contestant articles where the only justification is that they competed in a pageant and there are no other sources to indicate notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment Rather than taking my above comment as a delete vote, I would like to clarify that if she does not have accumulated notability (i.e. she is not the same Alicia Endemann as the singer/actress), it should be a redirect to Miss Universe Germany Mabalu (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per FreeRangeFrog's statement on Alexia Viruez AFD. If there is precedent, that's good enough for me. Mabalu (talk) 20:05, 14 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per every other recent beauty contestant AfD... she won a national beauty title and competed in Miss Universe, which is 2 events, not one, for starters. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEVENT, so a mention in Miss Universe Germany 2012 is sufficient. There may be a wikipedia precedent for every man and his dog ("girl and her dog" perhaps?!) who have competed in a beauty contest to have their own page, but I believe most of them only have inherited notability. 1292simon (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it one event? A national beauty pageant, and Miss Universe, that's two events. She WON the national beauty pageant, so she is clearly notable... which is exactly what the precedent says. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's impossible to compete in Miss Universe without winning the national title, I think they should be considered the same event for the purposes of notability. If every national candidate warrants a wikipedia page, we are gonna end up with a heap of boring WP:BLPs along the lines of "Jane Citizen won Miss *Insert Country* in 1968. She placed 38th in the Miss Universe that year.[ref]a reference[/ref] That is all". 1292simon (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a lot of sportspeople articles on here actually. Just saying. Mabalu (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other articles are breaking the rules, that is not a justification for this article. 1292simon (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she passes WP:GNG, and she won a national beauty title and competed in Miss Universe (two events). --Carioca (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Universe Germany. The only sourced content here is that she won this competition, and that's already in the Miss Universe Germany article. She may be notable, but that doesn't mean we should keep an article that isn't even a competent stub. --Michig (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national beauty pageant titleholders and Miss Universe contestans are notable. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:29, 24 December 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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tune Group

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

hardly sourced article that looks like an advertisement The Banner _talk 15:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added various references to the article. Obviously the text (and sourcing) can be expanded but the company appears notable. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while this should not be taken as supporting removal, I did not see anything approaching depth in the cited sources. As we look at references, I wonder if this "Closely-held" company has sufficient detail in its public coverage to support this article. Celtechm (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:04, 1 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rational thing to do would be to merge the articles on the individual companies in here, not remove the article on the main organization. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, and merge stub articles on the smaller individual companies here per DGG. References from WP:RS are now adequate. Altered Walter (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised how little coverage there appears to be for Tune Group, considering how some of their companies are well-known (like Tune Hotels), plus they sponsor Caterham F1 (I think). Still, there are enough sources in the article to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve - the question for inclusion/deletion is notability, where as something that looks like an advert should be tagged as approriate. More than notable enough to pass inclusion, over written presently with few references. Personally, a poor nomination for deletion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vasiliki Tsirogianni

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, needs to win Miss Universe to get an article, according to WP convention - WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I stated with the other Miss Universe participant articles. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Hellas due to single event notability, as should be done for all beauty pageant contestants in a similar case with no additional notability reasons. Mabalu (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FreeRangeFrog's statement on Alexia Viruez AFD. If there is precedent, that's good enough for me. Mabalu (talk) 20:06, 14 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - extrapolating from WP:BIO and WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, a winner of a national beauty pageant has made a top achievement in their field at a national level. An international win would make her even more notable, but a national win is sufficient. It's almost completely unreferenced, but that can be fixed: there's not much in WP:RS from a search for the Romanized spelling of her name, but there's plenty if you search for "βασιλικη τσιρογιαννη". Altered Walter (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FreeRangeFrog's statement on Alexia Viruez AFD. Basically, representing a nation at miss universe and winning a national title is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:56, 15 December 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 merge to Lemon Bucket Orkestra . MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Make Lemonade

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

Film lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Inclusion and awards in minor film festivals are not sufficient to demonstrate notability under WP:MOVIE. Conflict of Interest concerns have also been raised. RadioFan (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film festivals mentioned do not appear to be notable themselves. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Clermont-Ferrand International Short Film Festival is the second largest film festival in France, next to Cannes Film Festival. Yohowithrum (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)~~See [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if being the "second largest" necessarily makes it notable, but even given that, how does that make this movie notable? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you should be the one who gets to judge how notable French short film festivals are. France is a major European film producer and even the 2nd largest short film festival would be considered notable, in the sphere of short film festivals. Every year 100,000 people attend Clermont-Ferrand, so yes, getting in IS a big deal. Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't make it less notable. Anamatv (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Notability guidelines for films:

"The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." - The film is widely distributed on all Air Canada flights through their Video On Demand service. The film has received reviews from Moviefone and MSN.
"The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." - See awards from the Air Canada enRoute Film Festival, selected for People's Choice and Achievement in Documentary by industry professionals (see names).

"The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." See Lemon Bucket Orkestra. Yohowithrum (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)See [2] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yohowithrum does a disservice to his film by presenting this somewhat tortured interpretation of WP:NFILM, and I've discussed these same points with this user before. Firstly, showing a movie on an aircraft doesn't constitute widespread national (or international) distribution. Secondly, the award the film received was a minor one: the enRoute Film Festival is not a major festival and it receives very little coverage aside from press releases. Finally, the notability of the Lemon Bucket Orkestra is marginal at best: most of the references in the band's article are unreliable or trivial. That said: weak keep or merge with Lemon Bucket Orkestra. The references in the article are, in my opinion, sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Canada Film Festival isn't a film festival, it's a corporate contest. Other festivals mentioned are not significant enough to impact notability of this film. Shall we open a seperate AFD on the band? I've got similar concerns about its notability.--RadioFan (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RadioFan, you cannot claim the Film Festival is not a Film Festival. A Film Festival is not a film festival if it's commercial or corporate? ALL Film Festivals are commercial and corporate. Yohowithrum (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC) See [3] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yohowithrum, I agree with your defense of EnRoute - since when has being a commercial film festival been a disqualifying factor in the movie industry?! Having said that, it's false to claim that ALL festivals are commercial and corporate - many are non-profits. Example: Toronto International Film Festival is a non-profit with a TON of corporate sponsors. In short: Keep. Anamatv (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anamatv, I believe Yohowithrum meant that that despite a film festival being non-profit, it is still supported by corporate sponsors. That said, yes, the Air Canada enRoute Film Festival is indeed a film festival. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~User:Pburka Please be civil and leave your nasty language out of this. Yohowithrum (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

To clarify, I talked to Pburka about it, and I thought the bit about doing a disservice was kind of smarmy and condescending, but yeah, 'nasty' might have been a strong word. Yohowithrum (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC) See [4] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG, having being covered in multiple independent sources. BOVINEBOY2008 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are a handful of somewhat independent sources. The eyeOpener is the student newspaper at the director's school. It has an interest in promoting the director. Air Canada and its magazine, enRoute, are the organizers of the festival. The Globe and Mail article is actually a press release. CTV etalk is arguably independent, but in my experience it's the television equivalent of a press release. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize that I was excessively harsh in this response. There are a number of borderline sources in the article, as I pointed out above. But please don't discount the MSN, Moviefone and Dorkshelf sources. In my opinion, these are sufficient for WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment worth noting that the article was created by and the only significant editor of the article is the filmaker himself. This is the subject

of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Yohowithrum_COI a request for arbitration. RadioFan (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This link doesn't link to anything RadioFan? StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage, unimportant festival win. If it does well at Clermont-Ferrand, then there could be an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per 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. Therefore, since most of the articles focus on the film, the festival wins or the director, they are not trivial.Etobgirl (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to be notable. Morefoolhim 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a bit of coverage. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it must be one or the other but i think that a merge with Lemon Bucket Orkestra would be the most appropriate action. there is insufficient coverage of film to constitute notability, however I think that it is relevant information on the Lemon Bucket Orkestra article.minamato (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Yohowithrum - WP:NFILM and as per Bovineboy2008 - WP:GNG. Etobgirl (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the film appears to pass, even if in a borderline way, two or three criteria of WP:NFILM. A merging with Lemon Bucket Orkestra could also be a good compromise. Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which WP:NFILM criteria do you see it passing? There are WP:GNG concerns, specifically around the coverage in 3rd party sources. Pburka has raised concerns that the coverage either has a promotional interest and/or is largely a reprint of a press release.--RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"which WP:NFILM criteria do you see it passing?" see Yohowithrum's comments above. None of these arguments are convincing "per se", instead, IMHO, the sum of them speaks in favor of a keep/merge outcome. Cavarrone (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather than pointing to another's !vote, It would be far more helpful to the closing admin for the AFD to hear your specific thoughts on how you see this article meeting WP:NFILM. There are questions about the validity of that !vote anyway, Yohowithrum is the filmaker, trying very hard to see that the article on his film is not deleted. He's also currently banned for sockpuppetry.

Re: Sorry but your above comment is misrapresenting my vote. My argument was not pointing to another's !vote but, after having read the discussion and taken a look at the article, my argument is that the film is a classic "borderline" topic but ultimately closer to be notable than not. It received a few coverage (even if probably not sufficent enough to pass GNG by itself), featured a significant involvement by a notable person (here a musical group, Lemon Bucket Orkestra), won an award in a minor - but ultimately notable - festival and is entering one another notable festival. As written above none of these elements is a guarantee of notability by itself, but the sum of these elements goes towards a (minor) notability. Cavarrone (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic lacks enough coverage in reliable sources to maintain a stand alone article per WP:GNG. Without enough source material, text from press releases, weekly student newspapers, etc. are being used to give bulk to the article so that it has the appearance of a Wikipedia article. The trouble is that the reliable source community does not feel that this topic is notable (otherwise, they would be writing about it). Wikipedia's articles are here to be a representative survey of the relevant literature. In this case, a representative survey of the relevant literature is text that does not amount to a stand-alone Wikipedia article -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there are quite a bit of reliable sources, especially the official reviews, and are met by GNG. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Pburka, Yohowithrum and Bovineboy2008. The film meets GNG and WP:NFILM. Significant coverage as well as independant, reliable sources. This is an article independant of the one on Lemon Bucket Orkestra that is valuable to Wikipedia. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:36, 17 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 06:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Lemon Bucket Orkestra. There simply isn't enough notable coverage of the film -- as opposed to media mentions -- independent of the Ryerson college paper. Given that this is a Ryerson student film, I would have at least liked to see some significant article about the film, as opposed to the musical group, in mainstream press. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like the information of this page isn't just about the band, but also about the film, the festivals and the filmmakers and would bloat Lemon Bucket's page, and warrants its own page. Also, there seems to be more than enough coverage. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC) See [5] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins seem very relucatant to close this discussion for some reason. Perhaps we can speed up the process by coming to some concensus. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if we can agree on a selective merge to the parent article on the band. RadioFan (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment I believe the admins are reluctant because no consensus has been made. And isn't the timing around 7 days after each AfD nom and relisting? StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Per significant coverage. Notable film about a notable band, in two pretty prominent film festivals. There's too much sourced information here to merge the article to Lemon Bucket Orkestra's page. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:38, 31 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecobee

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

A company that is of insufficient notability to warrant an article. There are refs and the company has won awards but that is not enough. We should use the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to show that this company is getting undue commercial advantage by having a Wikipedia article. I am also suspicious of the editor (may be a WP:SPA?) since creating this article is the sole edit that she/he has carried out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Morefoolhim 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comments. I've removed the self-published source. The company is mentioned in a New York Times article. This combined with the other sources seems to me to establish some notability. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Stevefromcanada (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD[reply]

Delete I can't find any revenue data, but this company appears to be too small to warrant a page at this time. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The company received 6.73 million dollars from the Ontario Emerging Technologies Fund in 2010. The company does not publish sales figures but claims to have sold "tens of thousands" of thermostats. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Stevefromcanada (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am an employee of the company in question. I chose to write the article on my own initiative as I believe the company warrants it. -- Stevefromcanada (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for your disclosure. It is appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article sourcing is poor, but that's more to do with an editor new to Wikipedia than there being a lack of available reliable sources in which to establish notability. It's a bit tough going through the sarch results as it appears teh company has been quite prolific with its press releases. However, I did find coverage in Ars Technica, Daily Commercial News, Winnipeg Free Press, Globe and Mail, and PC magazine using google news. Some of teh coverage is less significant than others, but taken as awhole, I am satisfied that notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 7 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Globe & Mail article and the PC magazine article are the most significant, and they merely give it a paragraph in a list of similar devices. Full reviews show notability , but these are not full reviews. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Ars Technica and Winnipeg Free Press feature the ecobee as the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The product has received enough coverage that it's borderline notable, and the company and the product cannot really be separated at this time. --Michig (talk) 13:46, 15 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd have thought the awards would make this company notable. 1292simon (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alan Liefting is (mis)using the wp:AfD process here to imply the article's creator is an SPA. This has also happened here.

Is this in the best interests of Wikipedia? Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? Why am I the only person complaining? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious from the edit history and from the comments above that it was created by an SPA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alan. Special:Contributions/Stevefromcanada sure looks like a SPA to me. 1292simon (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting,@1292simon If this article's creator looks like an SPA to you shortly after joining Wikipedia and making his first edits (and having to deal with a deletion 2 days later), then all I can say is I must have been lucky to escape this kind of "welcome" when I first joined wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Awards and coverage make it notable. And I am sorry to the article creator that you got dragged into this deletion process; it is deeply unpleasant to many editors and especially to new editors to have legalistic AFD proceedings started, rather than milder discussion and suggestions at the talk page of an article. --do ncr am 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 20 December 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. Although a branch like this does not typically deserve an article of its own - and shouldn't - there's no consensus in this discussion to delete. This does not preclude future AFD's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Area Police/Private Security Liaison

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

No reliable sources; Not notable. Hopkinsenior (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The program has gotten a ton of Reliable Source coverage per Google News. Somebody needs to add some of these sources to the article, which currently has only one reference and that a dead link. But notability is based on AVAILABLE sources and there clearly are a lot of sources available. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Possibly the reason people thought there weren't sources is they were searching under APPL, rather than Area Police/Private Security Liaison which is the actual name of the article. For some reason this AfD was listed under the redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 1 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 1 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found above. Morefoolhim 19:23, 8 December 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable program, or as a second choice, merge to New York City Police Department. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 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 Revert to Redirect, as has already been done. If someone believes that this character should have their own article, please discuss it at Talk:Regular Show. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rigby (Regular Show)

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

Subject is not notable, the page is completely unsourced, it does not conform to the manual of style, and all this information was directly lifted off the main article, Regular Show. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. This kind of fan material better off at the Regular Show wiki[6]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Characters section of Regular Show. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like is said in the reason, everything here is on that page. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty clear case. Simply revert back to revision 470523749. Not sure why this was even brought to AFD, but oh well. Regards, Jeremy -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 03:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 23:17, 8 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:14, 8 December 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. No argument for deletion has been advanced by either the nominator or subsequent comments. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hegarty (Galway Hurler)

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

This was at AfC and I do not know how to judge it, because i do not know the different leagues. I thought the fairest way to proceed was to bring it here. DGG ( talk ) 14:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and revert back to AFC - This article is not ready for the mainspace, it was an AFC until the nominator approved it, then proded it as noted in the articles history. I previously declined it as it is not ready for the mainspace. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and revert back to AFC Agreed, this should be sent back to AFC if a mistake has been made. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per NGAELIC 3. Cited article makes it clear that he passes that test. Kevin McE (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's no need for the disambiguator in the title, as there are no other articles on WP about anyone called Jimmy Hegarty -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 7 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why relist? There is no argument for deletion, and given that it meets notability standards, no grounds to delete. Kevin McE (talk) 08:38, 8 December 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 Kan Ek'. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canek II

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

Canek was a hereditary title, not a named individual. The creation of this article came about from a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. I'm currently working on Kan Ek' (the modern spelling of the name), which will cover this subject better. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. It is a mystery to me how I came up with a name like Canek II. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article is wrongly included in Mexico - the Itza of Petén fall within Guatemala. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge -- This is a short factual article, dealing with an individual, apparently one whose given name is unknown. It is taken from an encyclopedia presumably one out of copyright. It is possible that "II" was to indicate that it was the secoind article on the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything within this article is included in the Kan Ek' article and Canek redirects there. There real problem I have with this page is the "II" - all the kings of the Itza were called Kan Ek', and we don't know who was the first, the Spanish had contact, probably, with three, with others falling in between due to extended periods during which there was no contact with the Itza. If we don't know who is the first, how can we know who is the second? At any rate, it certainly wasn't the king described in this stub. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:40, 4 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge I could have gotten the title from an existing redlink in another article which referred to the same individual, or perhaps I just made it up. The Wikipedia article itself makes no reference to a Canek II. Perhaps another way of identifying this individual can be identified. This individual seems to be under discussion in the Early 16th century section of the Kan Ek' article. Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography has a problem with imaginary subjects of biographies, but I see no indication of a problem here, as the individual seems to be reliably confirmed. I think the additional information that ACAB provides (date of death; attempted suppression of idolatry among people; further details on the worship of the horse) can be added to the above referenced section of the Kan Ek' article, or the Canek II article can be renamed and the relevant additional information from the Kan Ek' article put into it. Either solution would be satisfactory to me. Retaining the Canek II as a redirect would seem to be advisable if only to help anyone who my title has led astray. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:52, 13 December 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title "Canek II" is a result of a previous error. Since Canek redirects to Kan Ek', this article should be deleted to avoid duplication and confusion. 1292simon (talk) 02:00, 17 December 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. Consensus was leaning towards delete. So I used my more-than-rudimentary Danish to review the Danish articles, and then the French review. This confirmed the consensus. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bigum

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

Prod'd ages ago in 2007, removed by an IP address for no good reason. No independent sources. Possible COI from the article's author in 2006 (he went around adding links to Bigum in unrelated articles about how awesome Bigum is). Given 5 years to develop since the prod was removed... there are still no sources. Google search for "Martin Bigum -wikipedia" turns up his own webpage, an exhibition he once did (not really a 3rd party source but better than his personal webpage, sure), and mostly user-edited stuff otherwise (Youtube, other user-editable encyclopedias). Danish Wikipeda article isn't any better. SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also could find no reliable sources. Apparently he is a non-notable Renaissance man. - Mr X 02:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm finding more substantial Danish-language newspaper material such as this interview from 2007, this 2010 article; also this French-language review of his 2003 exhibition in Paris. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The paris-art reference is solid, just very short. I don't think the interviews are too useful for proving notability, though. This does help the article's case, just not sure it's really enough. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are interviews of him, and yes in non-English sources. Also has (at least)two books published about his work.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. From the Google Books result I assume you mean? "The face of God" is a self-published book. There are two in-passing references in "Production Methods: Behind the Scenes of Virtual Inhabited 3d Worlds" and "Design Thinking Business Analysis: Business Concept Mapping Applied" but both appear quite minor, it's not like the books are about his work, they just used him as an example on a single page. The other results are Wikipedia-mirror books that don't count. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 8 December 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Interviews BTW are the lowest form of reference, since it is the perfect self citation.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 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.