Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 4

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Closed without prejudice to a future renomination. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher H. Martin

Christopher H. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced and appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (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. Third party reliable sources that establish notability as a performer merit the retention of this article Seddon ^talk 11:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanam Krishnankutty

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

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Launchballer 22:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable Kathakali artist with significant coverage in mutiple reliable sources satisfying WP:BASIC. See, e.g., The Hindu, Indian Express. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There is no doubt the person is notable and even have significant coverage! You can added these references to article. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clears WP:ANYBIO without doubt. Evidence here, here and here - SaHiL (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:SahilSahadevan, passes WP:ANYBIO easily. XeroxKleenex (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2014 (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 Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shōgo Suzuki

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 22:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added one reference from Terebi Dogatchi, a rather long group interview on a rather prominent Japanese internet site on television, and another from Tarent Databank (from Kotobank, a database run by the Asahi Shinbun). The nominator only cites the lack of references as the reason for bringing to AfD, so now that there are references, does the nominator have any other reasons for deleting this? Michitaro (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever. Withdrawn, though if the interview is that long and you can read Japanese, do expand the article because it may make a good DYK.--Launchballer 20:45, 6 August 2014 (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 keep – withdrawn by nominator with no other editors advocating deletion. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Nilsson (author)

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 22:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment German Wikipedia de:Ulf Nilsson (Autor) has a number or references which may satisfy WP:BASIC. See, e;g. [1] and [2]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read German, add them to the article.--Launchballer 09:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus The Guardian. See WP:BEFORE "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability 1. The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nilsson has an entry in Nationalencyklopedin, which I've added as a reference. I'll add some more sources, too. --bonadea contributions talk 17:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Please be more careful when nominating "foreign" authors. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Withdrawn.--Launchballer 22:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - multiple award winner as a writer. I have added an official biography reference as well werldwayd (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2014 (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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfina Nasyrova

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 22:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep - Winner of a national title in a beauty pageant, going on to represent her country in both Miss Universe AND Miss World. That is usually sufficient for a stub article such as this. Personally, I'm indifferent, but precedent is precedent. It just needs a couple of valid sources to show that she DID hold these titles, and they're almost definitely out there - if only Google hadn't FUBAR their news archive search. Incidentally, the name is misspelled - it should be Alfina Nassyrova (2 S's) Mabalu (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really don't want to look through the Google hits at work but will have a look at home later. I'd note that the article itself is, apart from the one sentence on her education, a very appropriate, straightforward stub article which gives the bare basics as to why this woman is notable. It just needs a couple references. Mabalu (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once the references are there, I will withdraw.--Launchballer 15:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Launchballer, sources have been added. If this is withdrawn then the page needs moving to the correct spelling. Mabalu (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done and withdrawn.--Launchballer 21:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Nominator says here they withdraw the nomination. There are no other supporters for deletion. Anyone can/should close this. --doncram 05:49, 10 August 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of smartphones

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

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

This nomination is the continuation of the discussion held here: User_talk:Dsimic#Re:_List_of_M.2_SSDs_as_a_section_in_the_M.2_article with User:Dsimic and User:Jeh. This articles is part of the series of articles that I and other participants of the said discussion feel should be deleted because:

• Article violates WP:SPAM policy as it is biased toward certain manufacturers, because it does not contain all the smartphones that exist. Listing some manufacturers and products, but not others is not neutral, and lists like this can never be neutral, so it should be deleted.
• It is almost impossible to make it up-to date, which makes it per se incorrect. Article that is per se incorrect should be deleted.
• Article violates WP:IINFO as it contains "excessive listings of statistics" but it does not "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".

Two similar articles are now already deleted after those discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of stackable switches and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of displays by pixel density. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this information is applicable to the manufacture's website, but to have it in this fashion? It doesn't seem to meet wikipedia standards. Jab843 (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this comparison requires clean up per WP:WTAF, but not deletion. Per WP:LSC it should not even attempt to encompass all smartphones that ever existed, but rather only compare notable models. Given this severe scope limitation, it is very easy to keep this comparison up to date. I am unsure about WP:IINFO claim, as the article contains absolutely no statistical data. Furthermore, nom's concerns are applicable to the whole genre of product comparisons; as such, these concerns should be expressed (and addressed if consensus is gathered) at WT:SAL, not in individual AfD for one of such comparisons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you mean "the article contains absolutely no statistical data"? It contain only the statistical data. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Czarkoff. The criteria being used in this and similar AfDs are absurdly wide - not only do they seem to apply to any articles whatever on product comparisons, but the first two would also seem to apply equally to any lists, or for that matter to any articles or mentions, of products or manufacturers, however well-sourced, anywhere in Wikipedia. Such lists certainly need to be restricted to products notable enough, if not for a standalone article, at least a substantial sourced mention in (and redirect to) another Wikipedia article, the class of products concerned needs to be one compared in reliable sources, and the features compared not only need to be verifiable for the listed products but also ones which reliable sources regularly discuss when describing or comparing the products. But this article (I think unlike the ones in the previous AfDs mentioned) comes close enough that, even once the non-notable products are trimmed from the comparison, the article will still be of sufficient length to stay as SPLIT from its parent article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Czarkoff and User:PWilkinson , it's a useful list, WP:IINFO doesn't apply, nor does WP:SPAM. XeroxKleenex (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is possibly useful, but we have WP:USEFUL for that. Comparing devices like this, selecting which models to feature and which features to include, is an inherently WP:POV activity. Lets leave this sort of thing to tech sites and blogs, where it belongs. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Selection criterion is WP:N in this list. What point of view does it represent, exactly? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than a half of the entries are totally unreferenced. Those that are referenced, cite either official web sites of the manufacturer or some sites dedicated purely to technical characteristics of phones (like this). There is not a single independent source with significant coverage. I don't understand what type of WP:N is you talking about? By the way, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable (WP:NOTESAL), so your argument is irrelevant. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see WP:CSC. This list may live if it complies with first set of criteria. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:39, 13 August 2014 (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria do Carmo Silveira

Maria do Carmo Silveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A cacophony of grand claims but no evidence that WP:GNG is satisfied as is an unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 21:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 'Keep She was governor of the central bank. [3]. Polish Wikipedia pl:Maria do Carmo Silveira has a bunch of references [4], [5], [6], [7]. They probably satisfy WP:BASIC. Google translate tells me that the first Portuguese reference refers to her as "outgoing former prime minister" which would satisfy WP:POLITICIAN:1. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Here's an english language ref for prime minister. [8] 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The prime minister of a sovereign nation, even one as small as São Tomé and Príncipe, passes WP:POLITICIAN. Plenty of sources verify and discuss her service in that position, including [9] [10][11]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I suspected that may be the case. Please add them to the article and then I'll withdraw this.--Launchballer 09:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN as Arxiloxos notes. Suggest that nominator review WP:BEFORE. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:14, 5 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Colville, Viscountess Colville of Culross

Margaret Colville, Viscountess Colville of Culross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable Viscountess Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A NN barrister. Her husband is notable as an elected hereditary peer, but she is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails my standards for notability of barristers. When she gets her QC, or is appointed to an appellate court, then we'll talk. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CB territory right now. --Artene50 (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2014 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Neer

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 21:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the previous AfD was nine years ago, and its rationale was its length. Needless to say, it was kept.--Launchballer 22:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is clearly notable - see these Google News Archive search results and these Google Books search results for starters. As for lack of references, that shows a need for improvement not deletion. The only thing in the article that is objectionable from a BLP standpoint is the "Sir Sominex" quote - that could be yanked pending someone giving a source (on a quick look I see web mentions but not an RS). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've been able to reference almost everything in the article, including his friendship with Springsteen. The Sir Sominex thing appears to be a running gag - two examples added. Press mentions, book mentions, including a Kirkus review of his book. Meets GNG. I only wish the article creator had referenced it! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely brilliant. (As this was an entirely unreferenced BLP before, expanding it 2x would make it eligible for WP:DYK.) Withdrawn.--Launchballer 16:15, 9 August 2014 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Martino

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. (If this does get deleted, will someone please move Tony Martino (singer) here please.) Launchballer 21:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets NSPORTS by playing in CFL. Meets GNG via [12], [13], [14]. There is likely to be more articles out there like these. Patken4 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per Patken4 and per WP:NGRIDIRON. Not only played multiple years in the CFL, he was repeatedly named as a league or division All-Star. [15][16] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding sources to the article - withdrawn. Patken4, consider following Arxiloxos' example.--Launchballer 17:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Martino played 15 years in the CFL, and was a two-time Grey Cup champion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and easily could be a Speedy Keep if anyone is paying attention. According to CFLapedia, subject played for four different CFL teams between 1988 and 2002. I'm still trying to track down the number of games in which he appeared, but this guy was a multi-year starter, not a scrub, and clearly satisfies WP:NGRIDIRON. My tentative review of a Google News search also suggests that he probably satisfies the general notability guidelines, too, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has been called "a better-than-average punter" (see here) in a second-tier professional football league. Cbl62 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2014 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 09:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Maher (diplomat)

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 21:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep I've added multiple references just by a simple google search.--TM 00:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good - withdrawn.--Launchballer 09:00, 5 August 2014 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure)  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Xiaoyan

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article was easily fixed. The subject is an Olympic competitor, and Olympians pass WP:ATHLETE. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great - withdrawn. (For future reference, I have an exceptionally bad habit of AfDing similarly WP:ATHLETE-passing articles. If you see another AfD like it, just add a source and speedily close the AfD.)--Launchballer 18:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a former Olympic competitor, per Gene93k. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuka Tokumitsu

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 21:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Short career, minimal major roles. Appears to be non-notable. --erachima talk 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable roles as Gatomon (テイルモン Teirumon?, Tailmon) in the Digimon films. Also in Yume no Crayon Oukoku - The Crayon Kingdom of Dreams, did the voice of Princess Silver, the main character. Passes the subject specific guideline for voice actors at WP:ENT. Dream Focus 21:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still requires sources to demonstrate this.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Just whatever random people show up at these things, determine whether articles that are basically the same are kept or deleted. ENT #1 is clearly met. Primary sources are fine to prove the person was in the films with the parts they are said to have. Dream Focus 18:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to say about this person, and given their apparent retirement, there will continue to be nothing to say about this person for the foreseeable future. That is the essence of non-notability. Feel free to prove me wrong if you can find the sources. --erachima talk 18:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not some magical card you can wave to justify all voice actor articles. Primary sources can be used to say something, they do not make a person notable, WP:Basic tells us this. WP:ENT does not make an article or subject immune from the same fundamental requirements we make of other articles. In the case of this particular individual, the amount of roles attributed it so small that it's debatable if they really qualify as a voice actor rather than someone who just happened to have done a couple of roles part time (not uncommon). Theres nothing here to suggest that any meaningful coverage is likely to exist, and coverage is more important than continually misunderstanding notability guidelines. In fact, it being an unsourced article about as living person is enough reason to delete it, regardless of anything else.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the total absence of any sourcing or in-depth third-party coverage regarding roles or appearances, it's difficult to see how notability has been established. --DAJF (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no sources provided to verify roles that may establish notability. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5k, Ballet, and a Spinal Cord Injury

5k, Ballet, and a Spinal Cord Injury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sarah Todd Hammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Jennifer Starzec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Non-notable book. The true story of two young girls (age 11 and 16) who suffer and recover from transverse myelitis, written and self-published by the young girls themselves. Promoted by the TM Association, to whom the girls are donating part of the proceeds, and probably notable within the TM community, but not generally notable. I'm also co-nominating the articles about the book's authors (all three articles written by one of the book's authors) on similar grounds, as non-notable people. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, neither book nor authors appear to be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Non notable. No significant coverage. Clear COI as all three written by a user named the same as a subject of one of the articles as well as being aligned with the others. Cowlibob (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fuchs

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

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:Notability (people) or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—No claim to notability, not sufficient coverage in WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable individual lacking significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 5 August 2014 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Zetumer

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

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

NN screenwriter. Only has one film to his credit. It's safe to say it's too soon for an article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 16:22, 4 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjy Cohen

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

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

Fails WP:PEOPLE - a regional entertainer, article created by Benjymagic (talk · contribs) and edited by Benjyc6540 (talk · contribs), an IP geolocating to Thanet and an editor who makes it clear on the talk page he knows Cohen) Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of notability. Perhaps he will continue with his magic and become more notable, but he does not seem notable right now.Stesmo (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only reliable source I can seem to find is the Thanet Gazette. No national coverage or even coverage outside of Kent. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2014 (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 procedural close. Wrong venue. Please proceed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 18:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Die Nibelungenlied

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

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

I nominate this page for deletion. Even though it redirects to Nibelungenlied, there is absolutely no reason for this page to exist. It contains a glaring German grammatical error: the article for Nibelungenlied is Das, not Die, since Lied is a neuter noun, not feminine. One might say: "What's the harm, if it's simply a redirect page?". Well the existence of this page is harmful because it diseducates, as it creates the false impression in a user who stumbles into it that the article for Nibelungenlied is Die, when it is not! Pasquale (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a redirect, not an article. The proper venue to discuss this is Redirects for discussion, not AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2014 (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 article has been moved during this AfD to the capitalized title Korea Animal Rights Advocates. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Korea animal rights advocates

Korea animal rights advocates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article contains no sources and does not appear to be notable. It appears to be original research and only includes a link to the organization's Facebook page. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 07:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a national level group [17] with significant media coverag. See, e.g., [18], [19], [20]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Sparse but existing coverage in English-media (also [21], [22]) suggests that there should be an even better coverage in Korean. If any Korean speakers could take interest in this and discuss Korean sources, it would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 6 August 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Tiwari

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

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

Article (probably autobiography) about a 19-year-old Indian who has invented a method of dividing by zero and has "developed a new supercomputer based on his own invented mathematical formulae." Originally a user page, but during WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Theindianicon he moved it to mainspace, so it must now be assessed as an article. I considered speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but there is certainly an assertion of significance and (since one reference shows him as a speaker about his theory at a conference) one can just about argue that it passes the credible assertion test. However, apart from that conference, I see no evidence that anyone else takes his theories or his supercomputer seriously. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Not sufficient coverage in WP:RS to demonstrate notability. (WP:FRINGE will be an issue if coverage occurs in the future.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don;t see the significant coverage to establish notability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; turning math on its ear with a new "way to divide by zero" does not seem to have caught much notice. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails the criteria of Notability as well as it lacks significant coverage. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete because article have Verified Notable Sources— article have the notable sources like,

1) Government of India Patent Journal: Link: http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/journal_archieve/journal_2012/pat_arch_042012/official_journal_20042012_part_i.pdf 2) Peer View International Math Journal Publication: Link: http://journalshub.com/mrp-admin/news/1319523997.pdf 3) Article in largest and reputed newspaper group of India, Dainik Bhaskar, Link: \http://www.bhaskar.com/article/c-16-665295-NOR.html Sources are enough to get the article included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theindianicon (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Theindianicon: I am unable to find significant coverage in all these links, it is requested that please mention the page no. of your 1st reference link. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Even this appears to be the case of WP:COI since the images used in the article is claimed to be owned by contributer which is further confirmed by the slogan of this website which is similar to username of contributers'. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Clearly a self-promotional autobiography. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Press coverage, such as it is, is clearly insufficient for WP:GNG and WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE are clearly not met. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've seen the patent application, and I'm afraid that applying for or getting a patent is not an indication of notability. Addressing a conference on a subject may indicate that someone has taken notice of something, but there are conferences and conferences. Quite a lot of academics get invitations to speak at conferences that are really fund-raising events for the benefit of the organisers (scams), while other conferences are minor and mainly for the kudos of hosting a conference at or by a particular institution or publication. Others still are of international note. The one in question in the reference above appears to be the first one of its title and it seems to have reached at least the third one by now. Which raises a point - the paper was read in 2011. Presented in a parallel session rather than a whole conference session, it seems to have had little impact. The newspaper article, with a photo as big as (if not bigger than) the text, seems hardly an in depth coverage to judge by the Google translation (which I will admit is less than good - we could do to have a speaker of the language look at it). It must be remembered that if Einstein had posted an article on Relativity a day after his theory was made known, it would have been deleted. This has had three years (and no indication even of the patent being granted - can one patent a mathematical process?). Whether or not the method works, it's the notability that's at question. We do have articles on geocentric astronomy and the flat earth theories, neither of which work. Peridon (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:V, no mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral point of view on this subject, who also appears to fail WP:PROF and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not Youtube or facebook. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Division by zero is nothing new. At school we were taught that any number divided by zero is infinity (there is a special case: we were also taught that any number divided by itself is 1, and that zero divided by any number is zero; so 0/0 might be infinity, it might be 1, and it might be zero - but is almost certainly NaN). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, his website (mentioned above) has caused my virus scanner (McAfee Security Scan Plus) to complain thus "Threats Detection. Harmful websites: 1. These websites you've visited put your security at risk: ankurtiwari.in" --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No malicious software on site http://app.webinspector.com/public/reports/23893177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theindianicon (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Total lack of reliable sources, and at best this is claims of unsupported fringe science. That type of things requires lots and lots of reliable sources, which we totally lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Walk (novel)

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

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

Unsourced article about a book consisting almost entirely of plot detail. I am unable to find reliable, independent sources that establish that the book meets the minimum notability of WP:BKCRIT. - MrX 13:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC) *Delete - can't find any major coverage except blogs. --Jakob (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Robert_McCammon#Bibliography. I found a Kirkus review and evidence of a Publishers Weekly review, but neither of those would really keep the article on their existence alone and there's really nothing out there. He was a known writer in the horror genre by this point but he didn't really gain more mainstream coverage until later on down the line. I'd recommend redirecting it to McCammon's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Aside from the reviews mentioned above -- which are themselves strong evidence that much more substantial coverage exists in print form -- it's also easy to turn up, for example, a review where PW treats the novel as a genre standard [23]. Google is dreadful as a search tool for book reviews and related coverage -- especial with the GNews archive offline -- and the standard book review indices are paywalled or offline entirely. Those are not good reasons to gut Wikipedia's coverage of all but the top-tier of pre-Internet-published fiction and literature ,at least until Wikipedia decides its goal is to present "the sum of all human knowledge that's already easy to access via Google." The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 31 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well, the Google News Archive isn't offline. It's still quite available, and we even link to it above. I found a review by the Associated Press. I don't usually buy into WP:MUSTBESOURCES arguments, but I think that maybe there is enough evidence of notability here to make it at least debatable. Plus, this isn't some unknown hack who never got any press. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Switching to keep. Looks like there are some reviews after all. --Jakob (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MissionAli

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

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

Non-notable film. A quick web search showed no reliable sources. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 10:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It really meets none of the criteria for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Orange Sphere (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete At the very kindest, this article is TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that it's WP:TOOSOON at best, does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2014 (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 keep, clear consensus that this band is notable and that rationale given for deletion is invalid. Jinkinson talk to me 18:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkside (band)

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

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

Self-promotion Cosmo741 (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2014 (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/2014 August 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the subject is notable, meets WP:NBAND and is well sourced. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears clearly notable and the deletion rationale (from an apparently single purpose account) doesn't seem to have any validity. --Michig (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: article meet WP:GNG and also meet WP:NBAND. @Cosmo741: please kindly get yourself aquainted with the Notability Guidline before nominating an article for deletion.Wikicology (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2014 (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. J04n(talk page) 21:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelaziz Dakhane

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

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

This orphaned BLP has been unsourced since 2010. The source cited as a reference is an interview from a possibly unreliable source lacking independent coverage of the subject. I was unable to find any sources (searching in both English and Arabic), and found no evidence of notability as an academic in GScholar. Admittedly searching for Arabic sources is a challenge, but the Arabic version of the article is no better and the French article only cites the same interview as a source. As it stands, this fails Wikipedia:Verifiability Michig (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.--Launchballer 21:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication he meets requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vps comparison

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

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

Open-ended list, unencyclopedic, unreferenced, repetitive (Comparison of platform virtualization software), promotional. -download 06:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research on a non-notable topic.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional and non-notable.Rijin ^Talk 04:49, 11 August 2014 (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 by nominator per discussion below. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin' On the River

Rollin' On the River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album, with no sources provided. Tinton5 (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- this article was vandalized on July 28 2014 (the name, infobox and template were changed to Danish artist Kim Larsen). I have reverted the article to the previous version about an album by Creedence Clearwater Revival. The nominator may wish to reconsider this AFD since its nomination was based on a vandalized article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now Withdraw this nomination. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Tinton5 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2014 (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordain Women

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

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

Does not meet GNG, a fringe organization of merely 400 people does not cross the threshold of notability. This page seems to be authored by members of the movement and is rather subjective and promotional in tone. Tkfy7cf (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tkfy7cf (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep—Notability amply demonstrated over a range of diverse WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ample coverage in reliable sources. The group is indeed small but it has had an outsized effect within Mormonism and has received probably outsized coverage in 2013–14. I am the editor that originally created the article; it has been expanded since by a number of editors. I am not a member of the group. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep There is no question about notability as demonstrated by the good sources. Sanpitch (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not seeing where this fails GNG/Wikipedia:Notability. This delete request is one of four requested by Tkfy7cf that focus on removing well-cited articles of notable people / organisations that seem to be out of favor with the LDS / Mormon church. Stesmo (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2014 (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. Closing (NAC) as Keep (non-admin closure) Auric talk 19:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saheb Qiblah Fultali

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

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

All sources given are the subject's official fansite; external links are unreliable (a Wordpress blog) or, again, tied to the subject. Searching has turned up no hits in scholarly journals, books about religion in South Asia or even general news. The subject appears to fail WP:GNG on all counts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment doesn't seem notable to me; despite being a Bangladeshi, I never heard of him and can't find any other source about him. --» nafSadh did say 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this AfD keep? Seems like there is already a consensus. --» nafSadh did say 20:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:GNG, have found few sources, [24], [25], [26], [27]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am British and I am sure there are plenty of notable British people who I have never heard of as well but I am aware of the subject being a very well-known Bangladeshi cleric. Nevertheless as per Kmzayeem's findings, he has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources therefore passes WP:GNG. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not posit but commented. Zayeem's sources makes him look notable. Often some Sylhet based spiritual leader do not gain attention from rest of the country; it is only natural. --» nafSadh did say 16:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@nafSadh, it seem that you are offending Syleth. Saheb fultali gainn attention non only from all bangladesh, but also all asia. 217.42.231.31 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he didn't gain mine, until last week. I love Sylhet, wish I could visit that place more. Instead of keeping up with personal interaction you may create an account and continue improving this article, and others on Wikipedia. --» nafSadh did say 20:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - He is a known as a famous scholar in ASIA. WP:BIO and WP:GNG do not fail. As for MezzoMezzo, how dare you to nominated this article? You always nominate good articles. You must be ashamed of yourself. As for nafSadh, it is strange that you never heard about him, and where can not you find other source about him? 217.42.231.31 (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No personal comments at Afd please. Be aware that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. --Bejnar (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep passes WP:GNG, but weakness of existing cited sources notwithstanding, there must be better in depth coverage of him out there somewhere. --Bejnar (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kelly (feminist)

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

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

Fails GNG and WP:BIO Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tkfy7cf (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep—Wide range of WP:RS cited in the article are more than sufficient to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd like to hear more of the nominator's explanation as to why the article fails WP:GNG. As far as I can see, there is more than enough coverage in independent, reliable sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It is ridiculous to suggest that this page should be deleted, as demonstrated by the excellent sources. Sanpitch (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not seeing where this fails GNG/Wikipedia:Notability. Several sources (including The Salt Lake Tribune and New York Times) about the article's subject seem to validate notability.Stesmo (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources seem more than adequate. Per Good Olfactory, if we knew exactly why this was nominated, we could address specific concerns. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeet bahadur

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

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

Man is reunited with his parents. Nothing notable here. Fails WP:ANYBIO, and also mindful of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WWGB (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both of the above. Nothing indicates that the person has encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E as Neil said; also, per nom. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Belongs on Wikinews. Zwoc-RennisX (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NeilN and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete —Ascii002 (Talk • Contribs • Sign my Guestbook) 09:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't mean to be funny but why is this even an article ? .... Thousands of people go missing everyday and then are found again.., As per above WP:BLP1E applies. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely fails WP:BIO.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2014 (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Dehlin

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

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

Self promotion, subject authored, fails GNG and WP:BIO Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Between the TEDx talk and the NYTimes article I don't think notability is an issue here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cartographies. GNG is clearly met. Darmokand (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep There is no question about notability as demonstrated by the good sources. Sanpitch (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Notability is without question. This is a good article.--Manway 18:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not seeing where this fails GNG/Wikipedia:Notability. This delete request is one of four requested by Tkfy7cf that focus on removing well-cited articles of notable people / organisations that seem to be out of favor with the LDS / Mormon church. Stesmo (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Gulf War Veterans Association

American Gulf War Veterans Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Has been warred over through the years to attempt to point it at two different groups that share the name, one of which is not notable and another which is up there at the edges of WP:FRINGE. Neither meet WP:ORG. The previous AFD was triggered by copyvio concerns and kept based on the notability of the film Beyond Treason, which also fails WP:NFILMS and is currently at AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As referenced above, here are the websites of the two factions: http://www.americangulfwarveteransassociation.org/ and http://www.gulfwarvets.com/about.htm . Scroll down on the first link and you'll see one side of the battle over the Wikipedia page. Trivial mentions of the protagonists behind these "organizations" in news reports. Both fail WP:ORG. -Location (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to me that there aren't enough sources to establish a general notability of this group. jps (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SQRL

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

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

Likely does not currently meet WP:GNG. Could not find any mainstream sources on this. All sources referring to this not from the author seem to be blogs or online discussion fora, and all of those are from immediately after the initial announcement. There are some people working on client implementations, but no secondary sources indicating that any major sites even have plans to adopt it. Per WP:GNG and WP:CBALL, I propose that the article be deleted with no prejudice against re-creation if it becomes widely adopted or picks up any mainstream coverage in the future. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck out as you can't vote Delete twice .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are several reliable sources on SQRL to meet notability and merit an article. It's getting sufficient page views and is not an orphan. Morphh ^(talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what the "several reliable sources" are that you're referring to? Beyond the primary sources (which don't establish notability), the closest thing to a reliable source is the TechRepublic blog post, which has other problems with it (as discussed in my other reply below). As for your other points, we don't delete articles because they are orphaned or because they aren't getting enough pageviews. Those are not valid criteria for judging whether or not something gets its own article. If it's a common search term but the concept isn't notable, we can redirect the article to another article with relevant information (e.g. we can add some mention of SQRL to the relevant section of the QR codes page), but that should have no bearing on the deletion discussion. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ghacks I thought was fine. I was also considering TWIT as well, though that might be considered primary due to the show's relationship with Gibson. I think it has been mentioned on other TWIT shows. It's also referenced by the client implementations taking place across various platforms and languages. Morphh ^(talk) 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: None of the provided references qualify as independent reliable sources. Except maybe the Techrepublic one, but it says it's a "blog" too. Note also that the "Security Now!" podcast is closely related to Steve Gibson. -- intgr [talk] 15:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Techrepublic would probably fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. Morphh ^(talk) 15:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reliability of the TechRepublic blog is less important than the fact that the article itself doesn't really establish notability. It's essentially just a writeup of what I assume was a press release that accompanied the release of SQRL. Even if one source on a tech newsblog were sufficiently reliable, it's not clear that this doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS (since there hasn't really been any coverage of this since the initial announcement). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not required to establish notability to survive AfD. We're primarily evaluating the subject, not the articles here. ~KvnG 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it has Techrepublic source, it doesn't really talk much about it, the rest are primary sources. Also, this idea seems to copy eKaay, so there may be some prior art issues. Frmorrison (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I followed this when Steve Gibson first launched it. Although initially there seemed to be much support it has not developed outside a small dedicated group. If in the future it does become established and widely used we should have an article, at the moment a mention on his own article page will suffice. Dsergeant (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Two sources, Ghacks and Techrepublic seem to qualify as significant coverage and independent sources. There's also a dissertation, though not published in a scientific journal. -- intgr [talk] 14:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around some more and found what might be more reliable sources indicating notability. Here is a talk at a developer conference about the implementation of SQRL by someone I assume is not associated with Gibson. Here is a bachelor's thesis on the topic of implementing SQRL (again, not published in a peer-reviewed journal). Here is something which looks to be an analysis of various visual identification schemes, including SQRL. Again, this doesn't seem to be something published in a peer-reviwed journal. Overall, I'm not totally convinced here - you can't cobble together notability out of a bunch of half-reliable sources, but I thought it would be irresponsible not to mention what I've found. It may well be that, in a vacuum, I would believe that this is notable, but the grandiose, unsubstantiated claims about being "in talks with the W3C" (plus if you'll notice the HTML5 developer's conference abstract says that SQRL "set the internet on fire", which doesn't seem super accurate given how hard it's been to find any discussion of this more than a month or two out from the first announcement) and such have set my expectations too high, and biased me against a neutral assessment of the notability of this topic. I'd say that I'm changing my vote (presumptively "Delete" because I'm the nominator) to Weak delete in light of this new evidence. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in my view the sources provided by user:intgr are sufficient to squeak this past the general notability guideline, if only just. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:21, 3 August 2014 (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) 01:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While it may some time before the specification finds its way into international standards bodies publications, it is such a self-evident technology to those in the know, that at that time it will be uncontestably notable and if it's deleted now, it will have to be re-created. Wasted effort. 41.150.91.227 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CBALL. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 07:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by TechRepublic and gHacks. ~KvnG 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Regardless of some who wish SQRL to be legitimized by a popularity contest it is something to be informed about publicly for the sake of telecommunication security. The fact that it is an idea of function as advertised and that it is being donated free of charge with open code is enough to qualify it as legitimately relevant to security. Wikipedia is after all all about providing information based on facts freely donated by the public for the public for a common cause. To be informed about something of interest whether or not something becomes something more or less in the future shouldn't keep us from adding SQRL to the Wiki knowledge base as existing as long as it is as claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.196.184 (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is about WP:GNG and whether SQRL currently meets notability guidelines. It could be a proprietary machine that indiscriminately kills orphans and the analysis would be the same, so it doesn't really matter about the intentions of the creator. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 12:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This product may change the world (e.g. Darpa wants to eliminate passwords) or sink without trace. But IMO TODAY it's vaporware and TODAY it has 'promise'. Is promise notable? Twang (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2014 (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. With a note that it should only be recreated when there are reliable sources that document the topic, not just "when released". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flashlight (DJ Fresh song)

Flashlight (DJ Fresh song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems a pretty obvious case of WP:TOOSOON given that its release date is eight weeks away and no attempt is made to satisfy WP:NSONG, including a total absence of references. Launchballer 01:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to fall under WP:Crystal, I think until it is released or an official announcement is made, it is too soon. Jab843 (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm usually lenient on songs & release dates but this does take the piss, Per above way way too soon!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It will have to be recreated when released. 78.146.177.153 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - in seven and a half weeks.--Launchballer 21:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that far away. 78.146.177.153 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality House

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

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

nonnotable local agency, no refs to show notability. the only references provided are an OP ED in a local paper, by the org, and the orgs website. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Arts program of the organization sounds great to me. wp:BEFORE not performed? The current organization is a > $3m annually 501c3 nonprofit, per free Guidestar publication of nonprofit financial filings. Current Google news search mostly links to video and print coverage of 53-year-old Ronnie Goldman, homeless man, training for running San Francisco Marathon in 2014, and raising funds for the Hospitality House. This is itself significant coverage of Hospitality House. Also for other examples:
  • Page A1 coverage in Wall Street Journal: "On the Street and On Facebook: The Homeless Stay Wired --- Mr. Pitts Lacks a Mailing Address But He's Got a Computer and a Web Forum", Dvorak, Phred. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 30 May 2009: A.1, starts with Hospitality House executive director explaining about how much demand there is for house's computer lab.
  • SAN FRANCISCO STUDIO PROVIDES ARTISTIC SANCTUARY: [Chicagoland Final Edition] Costantinou, Marianne. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 27 Aug 2000: 4.
  • SAN FRANCISCO ART PROJECT AIDING NEEDY, Philadelphia Inquirer [Philadelphia, Pa] 01 Nov 1988: E.3.
  • "S.F. hospitality house offers fine -arts studio for homeless" Turner, Kimberly. Oakland Tribune [Oakland, Calif] 11 Apr 2006: 1.

I myself don't immediately find any direct connection to Chris Gardner (played by Will Smith in award-winning The Pursuit of Happiness) but there could be one, given the stockbroker was homeless in the Tenderloin district. Organization's website says it was founded in 1967, the Oakland Tribune 2006 article describes it as having opened in 1967 in response to Summer of love young people coming to San Francisco, within its article about the arts program. Substantial coverage, obvious notability. --doncram 10:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: all that is nice, proves they exist and are a good organization. but there are exactly 266 listings at google for "central city hospitality house", and not one of them is an in depth item from a state or significant local news group or website. [28]. Likewise Ronnie goldman, who has trivial coverage. can you provide any links to what you found? at least add the supposed links you have found to the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AFD. "AFD is not for cleanup" is an expression per many, and there's no requirement for the current article to have any sources at all, even. Simply, the topic meets wp:GNG, as multiple reliable sources solely or substantially about the organization are known to exist, have been given by me. "Supposed links"??? Sorry the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oakland Tribune articles about the organization are not online as far as i know, and sorry that you don't have convenient access to them. Since you ask, i'll put in on my to-do list to use the off-line material to develop this article a bit within a few weeks (and feel free to follow up with me at my Talk page), but that is NOT necessary for decision on this AFD. For now, call for closure: obvious KEEP. --doncram 12:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its not an obvious keep, and it is entirely necessary to provide references to show notability. its true, if nothing exists online, thats a problem. If you can find offline references that are substantially about the org, then the article can be recreated without prejudice. you already have called for keep, you dont need to say "keep" with each comment, and you DONT get to call for closure. and i never said this was about cleanup. i was saying that if you say there is a source, and dont add it to the article, and dont add it here, then where is it? even if listed here, we could close as keep and someone could add your ref to article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• article 1: [29] trivial coverage
• article 2: [30] reprint of examiner article, very short piece, examiner not considered all that reliable any more
• article 3: not online due to age (1988)
• article 4: [31], possibly originally at Tribune, though also possibly here first. decent coverage.

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - one problem with verifying facts is that there are many similarly-named organizations, including Albany NY, Charlotte NC, and Anchorage AK. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added more information (the article was a two-sentence stub) and four references from major sources. Clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I dont believe the new information and sources added show notability. this seems like a WP:BLP1E for an organization, a homeless man running gives them a headline. God, i must sound like such a hardass, trying to get this deleted. honestly, im not. i actually work in this general field, in this region, and am open to it being a notable org.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the nomination you said "the only references provided are an OP ED in a local paper, by the org, and the orgs website". Now that's no longer true; there are now multiple references in the article from national and international independent sources. But without missing a beat you changed your deletion rationale to BLP1E, without any acknowledgment that your earlier objections have been met. And before that you dismissed doncram's multiple articles from major national sources which are obviously and significantly about this organization, rejecting them because they aren't available online (which is not a requirement for a source) and sneering at them as "supposed links" (aren't we supposed to AGF about offline sources?). One wonders what it would take to get you to acknowledge notability. --MelanieN (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources which cover the subject in depth, and which are primarily about the subject, and show the subjects notability. most of the refs provided are about the runner, not about the organization itself. Yes, we have more refs. my original concern is no longer valid. we have at least 1 reliable source which mentions the organization objectively. but its still trival coverage, mostly secondary to the runner/artist, and shows only that its a small nonprofit, like the thousands of others in the bay area which dont have articles for the same reason. I assumed good faith and researched doncrams refs, and found them online (I may have used too long a search string initially when searching for refs, my error). i didnt add them to article, but provided them here. I am reading each new ref in its entirety, and i HOPE that enough refs can be found. I also wont object if this is kept based on what is now shown-its marginal at best, but i suppose marginal can go either way. thanks to all for the hard work involved.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to the repeated claim that most of the coverage is about the runner: Right now the article contains 11 references, of which nine are independent sources. Four of those nine independent references are about the runner. Four out of nine is not "most". --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have added to the article the three references provided by doncram that I could get online access to. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. The sources were reports over several days or even years, from reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IFLAC

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

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

No indication of notability. The references given are a one line index entry and a list of publications by members of the organisation. Google searches show mentions in blogs and social media and directories but no significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the reliable sources are not independent, and there isn't any other in depth coverage. A noble purpose, and well known founder does not grant notability. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Bejnar - Non notable organization with no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom., Bejnar, and Davey2010 --Jersey92 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2014 (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 List_of_UFO_sightings#20th_century. I acknowledge that there is a dissenting view, but there is a clear consensus of participants who feel this is not appropriate as a standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter

Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We evaluated this article quite a bit on the WP:FTN page and the consensus is that the sources are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise problematic from a WP:FRIND perspective. The issue here seems to be that there isn't a lot of independent sourcing that has gone on. The Ufology community discusses this incident with bated breath, but they have failed to convince any other external sources to take their claims seriously, apparently. Even the claims of mainstream notice made in the article have not borne fruit. A possible mention at List of UFO sightings might be okay, but redirecting to that page from the name of this article which is rather artificial (note the capitalized "Encounter" in violation of WP:MOS). jps (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per proposal. The coverage in RS is minimal to say the least. A mention at the List article is about all this is due. Is there any RS that supports notability that is not currently in the article? The article is well crafted so if additional sources to support it can be found I would reconsider.
• Comment I would not object to a move to comply with MOS even if it means my above comment would be lost and this discussion reopened. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of UFO sightings. While Torres claims were oft repeated by the press as slow news day filler, the alleged "government cover up" is only UFOlogists anxious speculations. What we have left is one of many "false target" incidents common during the early days of radar and a pilot convinced it was something mysterious. [32] (A bit of fun trivia for those interested: pilots were warned not to talk about such incidents mainly so that Cold War foes would not learn of the numerous quirks, bugs, capabilities and limitations of US radar systems, not because of any "UFO" cover up.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This incident is already listed in List of UFO sightings, therefore, redirect would not be a favor/blessing/grace. Considering that the lead of List of UFO sightings reads as "..including supposed cases of reported close encounters and abductions", there is no irrationality here to include such cases in that list. Regarding the authenticity remarks: are we here to probe the articles with respect to wikipedia policies and guidelines, or to refute/debunk such sightings/encounters. Logos5557 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Speedy Close I have to question this AFD nomination since its smells of WP:DONTLIKEIT not to mention that the WP:FRIND policy has problems in and of itself and is likely being abused by users who simply wanted to debunk UFO sightings and ufology encounters which is a blatant violation of WP:POINT.98.174.223.41 (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do not object to a brief mention within List of UFO sightings, however, there is insufficient material in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG criteria for a stand alone article. I have no strong objections for a redirect, but I'm not sure that it is warranted as a likely search term. Location (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is spectacularly unimportant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I do not believe in UFOs, but this has the feel of being one of the classic cases that will be put forward by believers. My concern is that all the sources appear to be from 2008, precisly 50 years after the alleged event. A lot of journalists wrote up a story in 2008. Was this all based ona single press release from a UFO advocate? If so, did he have a good source? At some point all UFO records were declassified. If there was a contemporary report (even classified at the time), it should be possible to identify the report and cite it directly from a source in The National Archives or the American equivalent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have gleaned from the two news reports I have found: [33][34]. In 1988, a UFO buff asks Torres if he ever saw a UFO and Torres tells him he saw a UFO in 1957. UFO buff asks Torres to write-up his account and sends it in a letter to the Ministry of Defense asking for an explanation. In October 2008, the letter and attachment are declassified and among those UFO files released as the UK Archives cleans house.[35] I'm not sure whether Torres or some other UFO buff is behind the press releases, but whatever hullabaloo exists hinges on the UFO buff's letter of inquiry with the attachment written by Torres. As far as I can tell, there is no other primary source documentation to support that Torres reported a UFO back in 1957 or that any government agency investigated the claim in 1957 or 1988 or at any other time. No one else has taken it seriously either, which explains why there is not enough reliable secondary source material to establish notability for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2014 (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 Rian Johnson. Note that a merge can be performed by accessing the revision history for Evil Demon Golfball from Hell!!!. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Demon Golfball from Hell!!!

Evil Demon Golfball from Hell!!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Short film who's only claim to notability is that it was made by Rian Johnson who went on to make Looper. Fails WP:NF Darx9url (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete  insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. No in depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rian Johnson#Early life per Schmidt, (below). Changed based on quality of discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep film is notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:ITSNOTABLE which suggests that backup reasoning be explicated when making this assertion. --Bejnar (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"film is notable" doesn't cut it, Your comment will just be dismissed anyway!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (& partial merge) this searchable title to Rian Johnson#Early life where it is already mentioned. An interesting situation. It does have mentions in books and articles that discuss it briefly in their speaking about the film Looper, and while it might be considered notable under WP:OEN as having a re-release more than five years after original release and for verifiably being the first film both written and directed by a notable filmmaker, it would make more sense to have this 8-minute black and white short film discussed in context to the career of its creator. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to and merge into Looper (film) or to Rian Johnson.--Rpclod (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rian Johnson - Seems better to merge than to delete imho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2014 (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 comments since the relisting make the consensus clear. Deor (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Object-oriented design ontology

Object-oriented design ontology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is pure Original Research. There are no references to the actual topic. There are references to the concept of ontology and references to the fact that object-oriented methods clearly fall into subpart and sublcass hierarchies (as does just about any form of knowledge) but no references (and to my knowledge no such references currently exists, hence OR) to the actual topic. Also, as I documented on Talk page, if we keep this article why shouldn't we have a topic on EVERY possible topic that could be represented via an ontology, which would mean thousands of new topics since just about any form of structured information can be represented by an ontology. MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that since posting this I did another search. I found a couple of online sources that were relevant but they were a PhD or Masters thesis and a project site at a University computer science department. I do think it's not a bad idea and could see it meriting an article at some point but my interpretation of notable is that if the idea is at the thesis or school project level it's not yet article worthy. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Concur with nom. Object-oriented design is ontologizable, but the ontolization itself has not been treated as a subject in WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 3 reference links are dead. 1 reference is very short, does not reference ontology and is a non-authoritative blog. 1 reference discusses object oriented design, but not ontology. 1 suggests that the practice of ontology arises from object oriented design but does not suggest that a specific OOD ontology exists. The last reference, A Theory of Object-Oriented Design, purports to "define an ontology that serves as a frame of reference for the discussion in the essential concepts of O-O design." However, it thereafter no longer discusses OOD ontology as a subject. The article may make an excellent proposal for a thesis, but I don't think it is appropriate as a Wikipedia article.--Rpclod (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I too think the subject is insufficiently specifically notable, following the arguments just above. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research. No evidence of notability. ~KvnG 14:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An article based on phrases like "Possible constructs that may be included" and "the various relations that may exist amongst these constructs" indicates that this article is speculative original research. This is not a discrete, notable topic and this article does not belong in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 6 August 2014 (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 List of Animorphs books. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Deception (Animorphs)

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

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