Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 November	26 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:A11 (obviously invented) and WP:G11 (unambiguous promotion). A search shows that at best, this is just something someone came up with WP:ONEDAY that never caught on with the academic or mainstream world. That the article was written in such a way that it came across as the creator's attempt to popularize the word doesn't help much either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tansprocess

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

I can find no coverage of this concept at all, never mind significant coverage. Since the article-creator is the originator of the idea, the article flirts with WP:MADEUP. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A11. No references suggests this is completely made up. ubiquity (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 November 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. czar ⨹ 08:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zale Newman

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee, which is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and he doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 18 November 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 21:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School board members are not automatically notable and his coverage is just the routine reporting of his school board activities--nothing to show encyclopedic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage seems routine. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:59, 2 December 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. czar ⨹ 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Moscoe

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for higher office, neither of which is a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and he doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 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 21:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School board members are not automatically notable and his coverage is just the routine reporting of his school board activities--nothing to show encyclopedic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level of coverage, doesn't seem worth keeping. --Cerebellum (talk) 07:01, 2 December 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. Consensus is clear, though I note no mention of its standing against the general notability guideline (the non-subject-specific criteria). czar ⨹ 15:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Moscoe

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee, which is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why she would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and she doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 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 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School board members are not automatically notable and his coverage is just the routine reporting of his school board activities--nothing to show encyclopedic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

her activities... Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While, in theory, a school board member could be notable (see Lewis Powell), this is not the case here. Delete. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 26 November 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. Noting very thin rationales. czar ⨹ 15:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Kate Jenkins

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

Does not appear to meet the notability requirements for biographies. Pichpich (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 November 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 21:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No compelling evidence of notability through sources and not encyclopaedic in tone. Libby norman (talk) 23:04, 25 November 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

700 Years of Classical Treasures: A Tapestry in Music and Words

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

There just does not seem to be significant reliable coverage of this Reader's Digest set to warrant inclusion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could be redirected to Reader's Digest or perhaps merged into a bibliography: [1] [2]. James500 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability in what is basically an advert; and per WP:IINFO. --Stfg (talk) 16:19, 2 December 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.

Blanca Gómez

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Natg 19 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Prison

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

Non notable song, composed nearly 100 years ago, now recorded on a (so far) non notable record. The song hasn't received significant attention from reliable independent sources, only a passing mention. Fram (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the song passes WP:GNG on the basis of existing sources. The fact that it has only just been recorded for the first time is part of the notability, having been unearthed as part of the artistic remembrance in the UK of the 100th Anniversary of the First World War. Compositions by major composers in German POW camps during WWI are few and far between, Messiaens Quatuor pour la fin du temps is the best known example. As far as English songs go, investigation into the songs composed at Ruhleben Camp starts with L. Foreman In Ruhleben Camp Taylor & Francis 2011 - that work discussed Fuchs, Leigh Henry, Frederick Keel and Edward Clark, specifically mentioning this setting of the William Morris poem. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the passing mention I noted. Being rare or unique is not an aspect of notability, every human being is unique, but not all are notable (luckily). The Quatuor by Messiaen is a very notable composition, this song so far isn't. Fram (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't the source you noted, this is a different one. The one you mentioned was Stephen Banfield Sensibility in English Song Cambridge University Press 1985 9780521379441 The First World War p.139 "More worthy of remembrance is Frederick Keel's gentle setting (1921) of William Morris' poem 'In prison' composed in 1915 in the Ruhleben (Berlin) prisoner-of-war camp in which, along with Edgar Bainton and Benjamin Dale, he was interned" In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Passes GNG" how eaxctly? One or two very passing mentions, one recording on a non notable record. Fram (talk) 08:28, 19 November 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 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say it passes WP:GNG with the sources in the existing article and the one mentioned above by In ictu oculi. Certainly enough to support a stub. Libby norman (talk) 00:36, 26 November 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 Crissy Criss. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Exit

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

Lots of non-WP:RS sources, are there enough RS to meet GNG? WP:BAND. Not WP:INHERITED from Crissy Criss (which is borderline notable, not that that's too relevant). Needs scrutiny due to:
- creator and all major editors are blocked or as-yet unblocked promo accounts (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Active_sockfarm_linked_to_Morning277 editors User:Iamsammyporter, User:Caribbeanbio, blocked sock User:Klokus of User:Newzealand123 - self-disclosed paid editor) allegedly paid MEATS / sockfarm loose connection to banned User:Morning277) Widefox; talk 14:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:14, 11 November 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 14:56, 18 November 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 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the blue linked member, Crissy Criss. Lack independent notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:51, 1 December 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of deal of the day services

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

Indiscriminate list article lacking sources that establish notability per WP:LISTN. The article is little more than a spam magnet. - Mr X 13:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deal of the day is apparently a notable topic, so this would pass LISTN even if it didn't pass WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles, and WP:CLN as a list complementary to Category:Deal of the day services. The "spam magnet" argument is nothing but WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and so can be dismissed as irrelevant even if the list weren't presently restricted to blue links. So is there an argument for not classifying these notable sites by this notable characteristics, such that we would also want to delete the category? Otherwise, I see no basis for deletion. Merging to the parent article would certainly seem feasible given how short this list is (presuming there aren't a lot of missing valid entries), but that's obviously not deletion and should have been dealt with outside of AFD. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject – deal of the day websites – is most certainly notable. The list is easy to maintain, and only notable entries are presented, as I don't see any "spam" present. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:12, 24 November 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 19:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poorly sourced, poorly developed, but an appropriate list on a notable subject (agree with Postdlf/Wikipedical) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:14, 27 November 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. Deor (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gari Glaysher

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The BBC piece is just him talking about himself. classical-crossover is not a reliable source. Despite claims of being world renowned he does not seem to get any coverage outside of Derby local interest pieces. Operetta roles are not in notable productions. Albums are not on an important label. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 12 November 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 12:11, 18 November 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 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with duffbeerforme above. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was going to close as delete, but I found too much stuff to put in a close rationale. Bunch of ProQuest hits in the Derby Evening Telegraph, where he is apparently a "Derby favourite". Largest mention was in

Rose, Jamie. "A Man with a Vision." The Kent and Sussex Courier, Nov 09, 2012, Tunbridge Wells ed. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1143919553 ProQuest

"Pavarocky; The former boxer from a rough estate who became an opera star." Sunday Express. (March 30, 2008 Sunday ): 968 words. LexisNexis

but not nearly enough to constitute significant coverage. The second one is actually pretty lengthy, but there is just not enough coverage unless someone finds more sources. Found nothing for albums too, so redirected those to artist. czar ⨹ 01:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:08, 3 December 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. czar ⨹ 01:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Smith (musician)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - lack of independent coverage, is not signed to label (major or otherwise), and awards are all regional, minor affairs. Only independent source I could find was this: http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/entertainment/236812311.html Does not satisfy GNG requirements. The Interior (Talk) 22:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 10 November 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked at the ref found by the nom, it is simply a local piece written in advance of a performance, a review of the performance would have been a better claim to notability, can't find any other significant coverage. Simply not finding enough for GNG and the subject's career achievements do not appear meet the criteria of MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 22:35, 23 November 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 19:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the subject fails WP:GNG and MUSICBIO. - tucoxn\^talk 02:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nothing in this article as written gets her over WP:NMUSIC — and I'm having about as much luck as the nominator in finding any evidence of substantive and non-local WP:RS coverage to salvage it with. And while the phrase "Music has always been a part of Smith's life" being right in the article's introduction would not, in and of itself, be enough to trigger my G11-speedy reflex, it does suggest that the core intent here was advertorial/promotional. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 27 November 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. czar ⨹ 08:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike R. Keller (Martial Arts)

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

Non-notable athlete. No indications of any significant coverage in independent media. References appear to amount to reviews of some videos that he produced and local coverage for an unspecified honor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable martial artist.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage and nothing to show he meets any notability criteria as a martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 28 November 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 Merge to Whelen Engineering Company. No quorum, but not leaning towards keeping. czar ⨹ 01:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whelen Hornet

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

Another NN product from a dubious notability company. All articles around Whelen seem to go towards deletion. This, I guess, will not be an exception. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable in any way. Lemnaminor (talk) 14:06, 7 November 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 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 15 November 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, Kurykh (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Whelen Engineering Company. Artw (talk) 19:01, 25 November 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 delete. A1/A3 pick your choice Secret ^account 19:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of chronologies of works of fiction

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

This is a rather random listing of Wikipedia articles. Despite the article title and aims, many of the articles listed are not "chronologies" at all and many are not "works of fiction". It ought to be speedied but doesn't fit any category for doing so. Bikeroo (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no clear definition of "chronology of work of fiction": Potential scope could expand to the unmanageable levels of every article on serial fiction, comic books, film series, etc. Per WP:SALAT, Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, and we already have numerous similar lists, including Outline of fiction (to which List of fiction topics redirects), more specific lists and categories such as List of science fiction films or Category:Lists of horror films‎ and of course List of lists of lists just in case anything was missed. Redundant, poorly-defined lists do not add to the utility of Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 25 November 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. per major improvements done by those here - Closing early since 6 more sources have been added so thus notability is there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O (gesture)

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

Single source, no evidence of any broader notability. Prod removed, so here we are. —Swpb^talk 14:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article was just created yesterday and there are a number of other reliable sources (a few are mentioned on the talk page) to establish notability a la similar topics Hook 'em Horns and Pitchfork (hand gesture). I plan on working on it this week, so let's give it a chance. --Esprqii (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). See additional sources on talk page plus discussion at WikiProject Oregon. Just let the article snowball. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why the rush? See here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#The O -Pete (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as there are now three sources and since 'O' is a difficult term to search for, finding more sources may be difficult despite the fact they may exist. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 November 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. czar ⨹ 08:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AP International

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

Not meeting Wikipedia notability Guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. - tucoxn\^talk 02:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Lack of coverage fails WP:COMPANY, and without coverage, simply distributing DVDs and audio CDs is not a notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:34, 29 November 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. czar ⨹ 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rito Silva, Jr.

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

Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Little depth of coverage. Fairly non-notable small city mayor. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cities of 19K aren't generally deemed to confer notability on their mayors, so he doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and with only a single article in a local newspaper for referencing he's not well-sourced enough to get over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 15 November 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 11:54, 18 November 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 11:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a mayor of a small Texas town does not confer automatic notability and there's a lack of sources to show he meets the GNG.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet NPOL as a small town mayor or GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 21:18, 26 November 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. czar ⨹ 01:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Figueroa, Jr.

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

Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Little depth of coverage. Fairly non-notable mayor of a small city. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cities of 19K aren't generally deemed to confer notability on their mayors, so he doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and with only a single article in a local community weekly newspaper he's not well-sourced enough to get over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 15 November 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 11:53, 18 November 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 11:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet GNG and being a small town Texas mayor doesn't make him a notable politician.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly falls below notability requirements for politicians. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:34, 30 November 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 The Lightning Process. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Parker (author)

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

Alleged to a promotional piece for the man in question, not sure if it should be deleted or rewritten, so its here at afd for the community to weigh in on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the article. It reads like an advertisement for Parker, and whatever he has done that is notable is more than amply discussed in the Lightning Process article. Many references in the latter article are again used in this one. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any advice on how to improve, amend and rewrite this page - I believe that there is merit in this being included in addition to the Lightning Process page. I do not agree that many of the references are duplicated between the Lightning Process page and this - 28 of the 34 current references are not included on the Lightning Process page. Followthepenguins (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lightning Process article. The reason is that the sources here are about the LP, not about Parker. If there were significant sources about him then it might make sense to have a separate article about him, but many of the articles listed here do not even name him. Some that do are mere directory listings or even advertisements. If there is biographical information that is not in the LP article, it would make sense to include a short section about the inventor of the process in order to include those. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 14 November 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 11:33, 18 November 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 11:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lightning Process His notability and independent coverage seems to come solely from this topic.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 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. Adsyvb, are you aware of out sister project Wikiversity: which, unlike Wikipedia, does allow original research? You might be better off there with what you are trying to do. E-mail me if you want to to retrieve a copy of the article for use elsewhere. SpinningSpark 18:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ButN

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

This article has been recreated in two separate pages and keeps getting csd tagged, however the editor claims the company to be notable. In difference to that fact I'm listing the article here to give the creator a chance to defend the work and make his case to the community about why the article should stay on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is not well written, but I did find reviews in Fox News, The Marketing Site, Business First Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, Marketing Mag, Conde Naste Traveller. Despite this, might be a case of too soon. JTdale ^Talk 11:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for lack of notability. This product has been launched by FedEE on ~~November~~ October 4, 2014 [3] and a little more than one month has not been enough to acquire notability. The media campaign that has been launched to advertise the new product has produced an handful of articles dedicated to it.[4][5][6][7][8]

Be aware that these articles are not independent reviews by secondary sources but only news about the launch of the product and, in good part, report the statements of a representative of the company. As a consequence, all the statements attributed to the company representative (quoting him or paraphrasing what he said) are considered a primary source of information. Beside that, I have found also a small citation of ButN, maybe spontaneous, in an article by Fox News dedicated to a different product.[9]

To sum it up, I have not found any evidence of notability because, other than the primary sources and the typical effects of a marketing campaign, no noticeable amount of secondary sources has been found. All the hints lead to a promotional activity and, at best, this is a classical example of WP:TOOSOON. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 11:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of article of butN. As explained earlier as part of research work in the graduate program which required me to look up companies which are competing with LinkedIn and write an article about it on Wikipedia. Whatever I could find about it I have written and kept a neutral point of view. Adsyvb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did note on Adsyvb's talk page that their course tutor needs to work with Wikipedia norms, rather than against them. (Asking people to write directly promotional articles, supported by the businesspeople involved in the site on the talk page, isn't in this spirit.) I proofread it a bit but on reflection, I agree with JTdale above that this is a bit WP:TOOSOON despite the assertions of significance necessitating an AFD rather than speedy. LS1979 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lstanley1979 JTdale TomStar81 I have done some editing on the page. Please have a look. Adsyvb (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the problem is not necessarily with the text of the article (long lists of website features written that way still come across as promotional, but I can see that for your project the article needs to be more than 'this website exists', so this is partly where you're on a collision course with Wikipedia editors), but whether the business qualifies for Wikipedia right now. Lack of notability is not something that can be fixed right now; butN simply needs more time in general use to qualify for a WP article.

You also need to go back to your tutor and explain Wikipedia is not a free webhost for college projects writing about businesses that currently fail notability guidelines; presumably there are a number of places where you could upload text about butN which aren't open to public scrutiny in order to discuss LinkedIn's potential competition.

I think at this juncture you need to read the guidelines/policies/etc pointed out to you and understand the limitations of Wikipedia's system as regards this assignment, based on what people are saying about butN's notability. LS1979 (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lstanley1979 I have been looking up data / links / articles regarding ButN on a regular basis and whatever I will comes across will be cited in the article. Adsyvb (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone I have found one more article with regards to butN. Not sure if I should cite it in the wikipedia article. Please have a look at it and advise. Here is the link: http://startups.co.uk/butn-robin-chater/ Adsyvb (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - I'm afraid that's still a self-published source. Interviews with site administrators are still not proof of notability, since anyone can write that as advertising copy; notability and reliable source guidelines need editorial control and oversight, and a third-party discussing the site without just quoting the founders. LS1979 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 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 11:30, 18 November 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 11:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon.Charles (talk) 18:38, 30 November 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. Secret ^account 23:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VBR-Belgium

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

This company and its products do not appear to be notable. Three of them have had multiple tags on them for years. The articles were mostly created by an editor with a copyright violation problem. I searched and found only one independent source: [10] However that link goes to a review on a website that's just based on Youtube videos produced by the inventor, and the website itself looks self-published. I won't nominate the template and category for deletion here, as I assume those will be deleted as well if all these are deleted first.

I am also nominating:

Rezin (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on the editor, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway Rezin (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...I agree not noteable, delete all of the above...especially the user page, with the backdoor article...not appropriate to say the least--RAF910 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 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 11:25, 18 November 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 11:54, 25 November 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. Secret ^account 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Goedert

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. He has bounced around the minors for some time and is unlikely to make the show. Spanneraol (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore [11] and restore redirection Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's no longer with that team so that makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes absolutely zero sense.--Yankees10 21:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes no sense is removing material from the encyclopedia from the target article and then un-redirecting and then bringing the topic to AfD with the argument that the topic is not notable, when the material could have been moved to a section on former players. Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is for current players not former.--Yankees10 23:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Yankees said; don't throw in comments if you have no clue what you're talking about. Wizardman 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've not made a policy-based argument. Yankees has not established him/herself as an authority...you see here a !vote from WP:ATA, the third in 3 AfDs I have seen today. WP:PRESERVE is a policy. I noticed you deleted John Whittleman this weekend, in the 2nd AfD; after you were a participant in the first AfD and !voted to delete. Do you have any comment about that? Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we should add a section on former players? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG not notable.--Yankees10 21:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He has received a fairly significant amount of coverage (lots of it is routine, but still) and his five years at Triple-A seems somewhat notable. Alex (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"lots" of routine coverage doesn't equal passing GNG. Five years in AAA means nothing in regards to notability.--Yankees10 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then my vote will be canceled out by votes of opposite conviction, I am but a single person in a sea of Wikipedians. Alex (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing much that suggets he's notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (albeit weak) Coverage appears to be more than just "routine" -- see WP:NOTROUTINE essay for more details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:15, 17 November 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 11:13, 18 November 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 11:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the sources used in the article are routine, sans perhaps the Kansas State one; if there was more on his college career that had strong references that might convince me. Wizardman 04:20, 27 November 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Branson

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

Previous afd resulten in a redirect. This destination no longer mentions Serene Branson. There no longer is any info left on the subject. CapnZapp (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is AfD, not RfD. I'd say "wrong venue", but the nom has followed neither WP:BEFORE nor WP:SOFIXIT. Unscintillating (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have tried to have an article deleted, so I might have done it wrong. In plain English, I'm trying to say: "This article should be removed since there is no information about its subject on Wikipedia anylonger". While simple to say in English, I find it very difficult to express in Wiki-bureaucrat-speak and/or find the "right" venue. And that even though I am certainly not new to Wikipedia. Shut this down if it isn't "the right venue", but then please point me in the right direction: this was my honest and best shot at doing it by the book! Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have "read and understood" all relevant policies (to the best of my ability) at WP:BEFORE, and I have read through each check at section B. Regarding sections C and D, I have looked through the history of the redirect target (the TV station) and understood that she was only mentioned on that page; then purged from the page as non-notable (she's had a single event where she got a migraine attack live). There is no info on the destination page left to justify the redirect, and there is no hope to expand the article (if for no other reason the previous AfD shunted her info over to the page that now have removed it).

And so I ask of you, Northamerica1000, to consider avoiding jumping to conclusions about the "nom" in the future. Instead, please advice me on how to proceed. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't beat the nom up on WP:BEFORE. Why, did you find any good refs to the subject that the nom should've caught, Unscintillating? I didn't: just a (small) heap of "Soandso told KCBS reporter Serene Branson that his manhood was carried off by dingos" links. There's only a single newspaper hit, which is more of the same. CapnZapp, what you want is WP:RFD. That's the right place to do it. Nha Trang 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. Regarding the above comments, I have not commented herein, I only provided deletion sorting. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My very sincere apologies: for some reason, I attributed that to you when I should've attributed it to Unscintillating. Nha Trang 21:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, apologies. I too mixed up the two of you.

Secondly, I read through RfD and do not believe that is the appropriate venue. Even though the page currently is a redirect. Nothing on that page applies to Serene Branson: I can't find a good WP:RFD#DELETE point, and WP:RFD#HARMFUL would seem to apply. Remember I'm talking about a page that started out as a biographical article, that at some point was made into a redirect as a result of a previous AfD. I want (wanted) to continue that discussion, and close the article entirely, thinking "Serene Branson" has "left" Wikipedia, now that the redirect has stopped making sense. This place is the only place that makes sense to me. But so far we have only discussed formalities and minutiae, which isn't why I decided to spend my time trying to help out. I've spent far too much time on what should have been a one-click delete. Therefore, I am outta here: if anybody wants to bring the issue to a administratively acceptable close, feel exceedingly free to do so yourself.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:06, 15 November 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 11:08, 18 November 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 11:50, 25 November 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) Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jonas Live

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

Article fails to establish notability for a musical concert tour; has become a stomping ground for fan-dictated fancruft and being treated as a page of a fan site. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a huge tour for one of North America's most popular musicians. The page can always be semi-protected to prevent edit warring by fans. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 12 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per Bearian MaranoFan (talk) 09:01, 24 November 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 11:44, 25 November 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 Merge to List of mergers and acquisitions by Google. czar ⨹ 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jambool

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

As I noted in the prod, I believe the coverage is insufficient to pass WP:COMPANY. Some niche coverage of its take over by Google is just a one-event type of coverage; each takeover by Google will generate some interests - enough, likely, to have a list of companies that were bought by Google or such, but not enough, IMHO, to warrant an article about such a company, not by itself. Ping User:SnowFire. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (I was the one who originally removed the prod). It's definitely borderline, but the right side of the line? I agree of course it's only notable as a Google acquisition, but said acquisition did in fact give reasonably significant coverage in the press, so a reliably sourced article can be written. WP:1E is usually something associated with people, not companies to me, and even then it's more a guideline/warning. SnowFire (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Google acquires companies while they are still in a pupa stage, before they have an identity of their own. (At least, that's how it looks to me.) It isn't clear if the company will continue to exist and develop or if Google will absorb its technology as Google tech. If the company continues to develop and thrives, then it may be worthy of an article. So far, though, companies that Google acquires seem to languish. LaMona (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was so busy pontificating that I forgot to give the real reasons for the delete: most of the sources are tech blogs, and many just repeat bits of press releases. Not significant sources of information. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 14 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Google, where it is already mentioned. (Piotr, I think that's the list you were looking for in your nomination; as you suspected, it already exists.) IMO the company fails the WP:GNG requirement for a standalone article; most of the references seem to be about Google or Facebook rather than about Jambool. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 22 November 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 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, SnowFire, and LaMona, thoughts on a merge? czar ⨹ 00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- *Support merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the alternative is Delete, sure, merge. However I believe that the current structure of List of mergers and acquisitions by Google isn't particularly suited to *actually* merging the content, more like leaving a redirect behind. Perhaps there can be some sort of "Minor acquisitions by Google" article some day that goes into more detail than a mere table entry but less detail than a full article, and the content would be best merged there, but that article doesn't currently exist I believe. SnowFire (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there is a logical merge, definitely merge. And, I presume, re-direct. LaMona (talk) 12:52, 2 December 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. AfD's are in essence a PROD discussion and after being relisted twice, there's a weak opposition to the article being deleted. Even being weak, it's the only !vote in the discussion that went either way. We're now at a no-consensus decision and relisting this discussion again doesn't look like it's going to garner any additional responses as we've gone two weeks without discussion. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin Armbrust

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

I can't find enough sources to justify general notability of this person. They DO meet some of the criteria for creative professionals, but I cannot find any sources other than the ones provided that provide significant coverage, and that are secondary sources.

As it stands, the references are:

One interview with the Hollywood Reporter (in depth secondary coverage)
One single entry in a list people mentioned in the The 20th Anniversary Gotham Independent Film Award
One profile of business people in Business Week (arguably secondary coverage but I'm not sure as it's part of a company profile, appears self-written)
One biography in a marketing website, which I consider to be a puff-piece (as a PR company is wont to write) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - While it does, as Panyd noted above, struggle mightily with WP:GNG, something seems off or weird to me that an established executive producer on numerous major motion pictures would somehow be unqualified for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. GauchoDude (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IMDB database lists some 200+ articles containing his name, but after lots of scrolling I couldn't find any about him. He is listed as producer on the films the articles are about, often as one of 3-5 producers. I don't see any blockbusters or academy awards in his history. If that's enough for notability, so be it, but other than a list of films there doesn't seem to be much to say about him. LaMona (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it depends what your definition of "blockbuster" is, not that "blockbusters" are the end all, be all to the discussion. I would say him being a producer on 5 films that earned over $50 million box office, with one over $125 million would certainly qualify as blockbuster status to me. Again, inconsequential, but it just feels off that being influential on movies like those doesn't result in an article. GauchoDude (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It feels incredibly off. I felt very torn about the nomination, but I couldn't find a thing. I have a sneaking suspicion the man likes to keep a low profile. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:06, 14 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 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 11:41, 25 November 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AnDré Mali

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

Fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 November 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the GNG, does not appear to meet GNG. The subject's career achievements do not appear to meet the criteria of MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 23:06, 23 November 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 11:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some cursory research indicates that Mr. Mali is, as of yet, early in his career and has not been the subject of sufficient coverage to be the basis of a separate article. He's been part of various bands, some of which may themselves merit articles, but Mr. Mali himself... no, not yet. Soon, I'm sure. But not yet. DS (talk) 16:29, 27 November 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. czar ⨹ 00:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Profili

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a mayor of a town with a population of just 3K, and as an unsuccessful federal election candidate. Neither of these constitutes a legitimate claim of notability under WP:NPOL, and I can't see a path to WP:GNG either. This would have qualified for blp prod if it were being created today — but it was created in 2005 (and has been edited just 25 times, 26 if you count me adding the AFD template as a substantive edit, in the entire almost-a-decade since, if that tells you anything.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 November 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 11:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP with no claims that would pass any notability criteria, even if they had supporting evidence.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator's assessment of the subject not meeting NPOL, a search for significant coverage in reliable sources came up empty, so the page does not meet GNG or ANYBIO either. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 28 November 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. @131.118.229.17, just pointing to a policy without an explanation of reasoning is a deletion argument to avoid. czar ⨹ 00:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Alberts

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, citing only one passing namecheck in somebody else's (deadlinked) obituary for sourcing. The municipality in question has a large enough population that its mayors might qualify for properly written and well-sourced articles, but as a relatively rural municipality on the outer edges of a metropolitan area it's not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability for all of its mayors — if this is all you can write and source about him, then it's simply not good enough to qualify him for inclusion. Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only find the odd passing mentions (and the occasional slightly-more-than-passing-mention) on hyperlocal news sites; certainly nothing of the level required by the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for politicians. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:32, 18 November 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 11:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NPOL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bearcat. It can be a potential article but not enough information was provided — Comm_Master (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:49, 25 November 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. It should not need to be said that this does not preclude editors taking further action such as merging, redirecting, or otherwise via the usual editorial processes such as discussion on the talk page or WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Ultra Marathon

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

Contested prod with no reason provided for the removal of the notice. The only relevant sources about this event aside from background information are from Facebook and strava, hardly reliable sources. _dk (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re. contested prod Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting giving a reason is "...encouraged, but not required". Article not beyond saving because of lack of sources. In such instances the thing to do is to tag the article with {{unreliable}} or {{unreferenced}} first and then PROD if no improvements are forthcoming. In any event the marathon was covered by mainstream HK news sources including on television by TVB news, in the local press by SCMP and by the international press agencies, e.g.:-

Taylor, Jerome (October 28, 2014). "Umbrella-shaped ultramarathon to support Hong Kong protests". Agence France-Presse. Retrieved November 9, 2014.
Jaqueline, Rachel (October 29, 2014). "Ultra-runners race 102km umbrella-shaped route across Hong Kong to support Occupy". South China Morning Post. Retrieved November 9, 2014.

Just googling Umbrella Ultra Marathon in news will turn up loads of ghits, as does googling "傘超級馬拉松":-

葉靖斯 (October 29, 2014). "香港澳洲僑民跑超級馬拉松聲援雨傘運動". BBC World Service. Retrieved November 9, 2014.--KTo288 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are also WP:NOTNEWS concerns that I have that I should add now. What notability does this marathon have independent of the protests? _dk (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general I would like to say that individual one off events may have a notability that qualify them for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, even though Wikipedia is not a running chronicle of such instances; however in this case may I suggest a merge into 2014 Hong Kong protests, if greater notoriety accrues to the event it can always be spun back out into its own article.--KTo288 (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding references and extra content now. Some related articles have been linked, included the 2014 Hong Kong protests and the Occupy Central with Love and Peace. One reason I think it should not be merged to 2014 Hong Kong protests is, it cannot be regarded as an illegal event by police which contrast other activities in the Umbrella Movement. Many related running events were triggered after this. --Kaikeung(talk) 15:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If related events were triggered, wouldn;t it be better to do a combination article on them? DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 17 November 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 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that far too much content has been lumped into 2014 Hong Kong protests already. Current content includes chronology, specifics about locations, artworks etc. It would be better if that article gave an overview, and in-depth content was transferred into separate articles about significant events (eg 26 September Confrontations, Lion Rock Banner, Marathon), locations (Umbrella Square, Mongkok etc), Umbrella Man and so forth. Kaffiend (talk) 03:15, 21 November 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 11:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge or redirect - As I have stated multiple times, 2014 Hong Kong protests is getting to be a long article. Without looking at all of the references, I feel that many of them are published by reliable sources. For these reasons, I feel that deletion is not a good option, as the article is related to the protests. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are sufficient sources to indicate that this topic is at least borderline notable. It is notable in the context of the Umbrella revolution, as part of the efforts to publicise the quest for democracy in HK, and hasn't been adequately dealt with in the main article about the protests and is unlikely to be, due to space and weight constraints. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:Notability (events) test. STSC (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2014 Hong Kong protests. The content could live better in the context of the protests, though it might be sufficiently notable without regard to the protests, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.81.255.41 (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this meets WP:EVENT, article too long for a proper merge, no substantial news coverage. A one sentence mention is fine. Secret ^account 23:12, 3 December 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 Helps, no consensus on Williams and Atwell without prejudice to a speedy nomination, Delete the rest. Next time don't do mass nominations as it gets really messy and confusing quickly, especially if one of them, like Helps, meets relevant guidelines.Secret ^account 23:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Helps

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

Mayors of small towns aren't normally notable - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians. No indication that this person would be notable Also nominating the following for the same reason

Gbawden (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Helps: Weak keep I'm inclined to believe she meets GNG based on sources like [12] [13] [14] Also, with a population of 80,000 I'm not entirely sure Victoria is best described as a "small town". Everymorning talk to me 12:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helps and Atwell. Delete the rest. Victoria is the provincial capital and Saanich has a population of 100K, which I believe is the informal cutoff. The rest are mayors-elect for much smaller places. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per nom - Fails WP:POLITICIANS. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, including Helps and Atwell as not notable enough and most are not notable at all. Kierzek (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria is not a "small town", but is one of the 100 largest cities, and the core city of one of the 15 largest metropolitan areas, in all of Canada — and it's also a provincial capital. So it fully satisfies the "cities of regional prominence" consideration in WP:POLOUTCOMES. Consensus has already established that Victoria's mayors are sufficiently notable: every single mayor that the city has ever had before Helps does already have a Wikipedia article — yes, really, every single one without exception, see List of mayors of Victoria, British Columbia and Category:Mayors of Victoria, British Columbia if you doubt me — and there's no valid reason for Helps to be the first mayor in the city's history to be treated differently from every single one who came before her. And the city's local politics does get substantial enough coverage in reliable sources that even if not all that much of substance can really be written about her now, much more will be able to be added within the month when she actually takes office and starts trying to push through an agenda. In fact, the case for her is so inherently different from any of the others that she shouldn't be bundled with this nomination at all.

There's no hard and fast population cutoff for determining whether a city is large enough to have articles about its mayors or not — the unofficial figure that enters into the calculations is 50K rather than 100K, but that's an operand in the equation, not the overriding factor in and of itself. Larger cities can still have their mayors fail to qualify in some circumstances (e.g. poor sourcing, non-prominent "suburban" status, ceremonial/rotating mayoralty, etc.), and smaller ones can get over the bar if they can be disproportionately well-sourced. So Saanich is teetering on the edge, because it's a suburban municipality which isn't particularly prominent outside of its own local area — unlike Victoria, most of Saanich's mayors prior to Atwell don't have Wikipedia articles — and all of the others fall off the cliff because the cities aren't large or prominent enough to confer automatic notability on a mayor at all.

So keep Helps (I'll personally contribute to improving it), leaning delete on Atwell (I could be convinced to change my vote on him if significant sourcing improvements are forthcoming, but he doesn't get a free NPOL pass just because of Saanich's population if the article doesn't get any better than this), and delete the others. Update: keep Williams as well, as sufficient reliable sourcing has now been added to cover his preexisting notability as a composer — however, since the composing work, not the mayoralty, is the substance of why he qualifies for an article, he should be disambiguated as Ken Williams (composer) rather than as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helps. Victoria is the capital of BC, being the mayor is therefore quite notable. Atwell is notable as well, as Saanich is the largest municipality on Vancouver Island, but it needs expanding. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: Why even have a category for British Columbia mayors if only mayoralty in the largest city is notable? Why is Helps not notable when every other mayor in Victoria's 160 year history is? Delete Helps and you must delete dozens more articles with her. DoItForTheLulz (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ken Williams because he is also a world class composer for films such as Sundance and Cannes winner In the Company of Men, and international Emmy Winner and BAFTA winner, The Magician's House. As well as Disney's series So Weird produced by Henry Winkler and starring McKenzie Phillips. imdb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.45.19 (talk • contribs)

Being a composer isn't a free notability pass either. A composer does not automatically get to keep an article on Wikipedia just because he exists, any more than a politician does — rather, he has to pass WP:MUSICIAN to qualify for an article on that basis, and simply listing his composing credits and sourcing them to IMDb doesn't get him over that bar. You need reliable source coverage of his composing work to get him over MUSICIAN for his composing work. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ken Williams. Mayallamawiki (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I will be working on links, citations and proper format to improve article. There are hundreds of references. I will also be adding Ken Williams to the Canadian composers category where he should be.[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helps is the Mayor of the capital of British Columbia. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mayor of Victoria seems a priori notable to me; it's a provincial capital, after all. The rest I have not the time to go into, but they need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helps Close the others as no consensus and may be relisted without prejudice. Helps is clearly notable by the consensus above. Atwell's an interesting one - borderline. Ken Williams is apparently notable but under wp:NCOMPOSER. And the others haven't been discussed much - a separate discussion would be necessary as there are too many issues flying about here. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's been well established that mayors of larger state and provincial capitals are usually notable. Victoria, BC, Albany, NY, and the like would probably be notable, although probably not Montpelier, Vermont. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 3 December 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) czar ⨹ 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Kapoor

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

An A7 was previously declined, which is why I declined a second one. Being a travel show host may pass A7, but I don't think it passes notability without quite a lot more information. There's one reference so far, and I would regard it as OK for passing blp-prod, but not for showing real notability. Peridon (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore -related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The one source the article gives establishes her as a host on Now Asia which appears to be a show of the Now TV Network. The article also establishes her by saying that "Anita has her own TV shows, is an editor and writer for prestigious magazines and newspapers and has also taken her chance as voiceover artist – all in between hosting high-end events." There is also article by the GMA network that confirms her role in Asian television and other works. She appears to be mentioned in the press [15] for her show. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs improvement, not deletion, but quick research shows she appears to be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:48, 25 November 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 10:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a massive amount of sources out there, but the ones in the the article just put her over the bar I think. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:46, 25 November 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. Secret ^account 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ferenc Csentery

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

And also try: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --doncram

I see no indication the subject might meet WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO, WP:GNG or any other relevant policy. In terms of the sources provided, a one-line mention in a mimeographed circular from 1971 is, well, not evidence of notability. Neither is this (not sure what that is even supposed to prove), nor this, which mentions the subject not at all. In short, there's an utter lack of reliable sources about the subject, and so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your consideration. I would like to comply with requirements for inclusion under the WP:ARTIST policy; I understand if the currently included sources are not sufficient, and will work over the next weeks to cite sources with improved relevance and reliability.

The first source was to verify that he taught sculpture at Caltech during a critical period of technology development related to space exploration; CalTech is widely regarded as being the most important educational institution associated with the US space program, managing resources like JPL and the Observatory at Mt. Palomar.

The second URL, linking to the Hirshorn Museum collection page, is a searchable index of works in their permanent collection, to meet the requirements for WP:ARTIST item #4. There are two pieces by Ferenc Csentery listed in this major museum's collection:

Ferenc Csentery Aluminum, 14 1/2 x 27 1/4 x 9 1/2 in. (36.9 x 69.2 x 24.1 cm) Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, The Joseph H. Hirshhorn Bequest, 1981; Accession Number: 86.1282 Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden Collection
Ferenc Csentery Brushed aluminum and plexiglass, 30 x 17 x 17 3/4 in. (76.2 x 43.2 x 45.1 cm) BASE: 2 1/4 x 16 x 17 3/4 in. (5.7 x 40.6 x 45.1 cm) Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, The Joseph H. Hirshhorn Bequest, 1981; Accession Number: 86.1281 Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden Collection

While reviewing the final reference, I have realized that the artist's name on this document was cited as Czenze Ference in reference to the Revolution Monument in MacArthur Park. I will provide an updated reference for this shortly (LA Times news article) which correctly lists him as a contributor to this important monument in the largest public park in Los Angeles. AaronFinney (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a new article created about a person who just died. The article creator doesn't need to explain, but my guess is that the creator has some connection and knows about the significance of the person, and could have been prompted by announcement of a funeral or whatever. That is fine. The creator is not very much experienced in Wikipedia (not many contributions) and is working to bring this article into compliance. There can be no Biography of Living Persons (BLP) issues. Also, the subject of the article does strike me as notable, given he has two works in the prestigious Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. Give the relative newbie a break, don't wp:BITE the newbie, and simply close this Keep. Revisit later, possibly, if it is not developed. To AaronFinney: Keep up the good work, glad you are on board. --do ncr am 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I realize the article creator is a newcomer, that doesn't mean we shouldn't subject Csentery to scrutiny. In that spirit, let's drill further into the claims of notability.
It would have been one thing if he had been a tenured full professor; Csentery was a part-timer who taught one "generally unsuccessful" Sculpture course that ultimately only five students ended up completing, and was apparently fired after a year. WP:PROF-notable he was not.
Whatever role Csentere may have played in the Los Angeles monument's creation, the fact is that the man credited with its design is not Csentery but Árpád Domján.
The Hirshhorn presence is more intriguing, although that doesn't quite take us to the "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" standard set by WP:ARTIST.
I'm certainly willing to listen to claims made on behalf of Csentery's notability, and this discussion does run for a week, during which time conclusive evidence of notability can be adduced. However, at some point, WP:V will have to be met. It may sound as though Csentery is notable, but per our policies, we do need independent references that make it clear. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your points noted, and i generally agree. I also want to note that since the person just died, it is possible that an obituary will soon appear in the Los Angeles Times or the Pasadena Star-Register(?) or other newspapers, which would go towards establishing notability. Also i am not immediately finding any Los Angeles Times coverage of the person, in the current search at LATimes website or in one newspaper literature search that I have access to. Perhaps i am searching badly. To the article creator, please do add the LATimes reference you mention. To the creator and to the eventual closer of this AFD, if it does turn out that insufficient evidence of notability is provided, perhaps the article could be "userfied" to the creator's space, to be edited there and submitted via wp:AFC process later. To the creator, if the article is deleted, you can definitely get a copy of it provided to you by email or somehow, by requesting that. I do hope references can be provided, but i myself am not immediately finding them. I still vote "Keep" as my best assessment however. --do ncr am 01:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like the artist was active in the 1960s and 1970s. On sources:

Per this info about a file at Smithsonian for Ferenc Csentery existing, someone could call the Smithsonian and seek info, what is in the file, are there significant news clippings etc. Librarians and museum staff are often very helpful.
this WorldCat item documents an exhibit at Cal Tech in 1970
some evidence of a Long Beach Art Museum exhibit, Seventh Annual Southern California something, in 1969
local newspaper The Vista Press mention of a juror's award in an art show for Ferenc, on page 5, in 1969
Artist's webpage at www.ferenccsentery.com could have been added as an external link to the article, but the website was closed a couple days ago.
Off-line sources are fine, they do NOT need to be internet-accessible. --do ncr am 02:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I greatly appreciate the discussion and help, and I have a new level of respect for the diligence with which the WP maintainers approach this work. Many of Doncram's original assumptions were correct, and I do not mind disclosing some of those details. I am directly associated with the artist, who entrusted me with his portfolio of documents shortly before his death from cancer on November 7th. Ironically, his website went offline two days ago due to its maintainer also being hospitalized with what has been diagnosed as terminal cancer. As Doncram deduced, the creation of the article was prompted by my receiving news of his death - it was originally written in the present tense to give family and friends time to be notified as well, and modified shortly after. The process of writing the Wikipedia article has been incredibly educational and I will spend more time in the coming week learning about references; I do think that Biruitorul is absolutely correct that my inexperience as a contributor should have no bearing on whether Ferenc is determined to have met the WP criteria for inclusion as a notable person. Many of the references I have in my possession are simply newspaper clippings mounted to album pages, so I will need to do additional research to document these properly. I will be perfectly fine with whatever decision the WP maintainers make regarding keeping or deleting the article, especially since I've had the visibility into the thoughtfulness which has already gone into it.

-- AaronFinney (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing more, though you really don't have to, and for your helpful attitude. About the no-longer-posted webpage, i can see at the "Wayback Machine" copies of ferenccsentery.com that the main webpage was titled "Scrapbook 1962-2000" and consisted of 62 image-pages, but i can only see image-pages 1,2,3. Perhaps the album pages you have were made into those image-pages? But, a scrapbook in hard copy or webpage form is not an independently published work itself, and won't go far towards establishing notability probably. Included articles that were published in newspapers would count as published sources though. --do ncr am 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The external reference which is included in the article, ferenccsentery.net, contains the core content from the site which is currently offline, including several of the aforementioned articles in image form. These include a review of a 1967 exhibition from noted art critic Arthur Millier in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, a review of the same exhibition in the LA Times from art critic William Wilson, an LA Times article from a yet-unknown author reviewing his first one-man show, a Pasadena Star News article from art editor Larry Palmer reviewing his 1970 Caltech show, a detailed analysis of the artist and work by David Smith from a book published for the same 1970 Caltech show, and a 1974 article on Csentery in Artweek Magazine. I will attempt to properly document all of these sources in the coming week for the maintainers' consideration. --AaronFinney (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, i see now that the .net webpage works, in that a film covers scrapbook album pages with presumably Hungarian-language dirge sung/chanted presumably by the artist. The film can be started and stopped. Given the context, I accept fully that the articles included are what they appear to be...and note this would be impossible to put together from new research now, as little of it would be available online. It includes:

At time marker 0:54: Los Angeles Times, June 9, 1967, "In the Galleries: First One Man Show for Ferenc Csentery", a favorable review of his show at Comora Gallery, and mentioning purchase of 2 items by Joseph H. Hirshhorn, describes his work as "evocative of space technology" and calls him "one of the most intriguing young sculptural talents on the local scene". This is very favorable, and the local scene is greater Los Angeles, a top market.
At 1:45: Los Angeles Times, "In the Galleries: Campus Exhibition of Miniworks", by William Wilson, mentions one of four purchase prizes for Ferenc Csentery's "mysterious black pyramid screen enclosure".
At 1:50: College Times review of same show, has a bit more about Csentery.
At 2:06 (page 1) and 2:09 (page 2): All California Art Exhibition, 1968, at National Orange Show Grounds Art Gallery, Csentery's depicted piece "A Twist of Cube" wins apparently top prize in modern sculpture, First Prize - Modern Sculpture", selected by jury of notables, seems like a major prize.
At 2:45: "Art Forms Bridge Gap at Caltech", Pasadena Star-News, January 21, 1970, by Larry Palmer, page B-1, positive review of 2 person show with big photo of the two artists, is significant coverage in a regional newspaper; CalTech news article following gives more detail on the opening.
At 2:57: page 42 of album, and following pages 43, 44, 45, apparently a book(?) with useful info, that Csentery works at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL): "Unlike many American artists, Csentery does not gain his livelihood by teaching. A precision welder and machinist of nearly infinite finesse, he works on components for JPL and the space program. He is, in other words, ideally placed to bring together certain aspects of..." various worlds. Byline is David Smith. Seems like major review, unclear what is the publication, but David Smith can probably be identified.
At 3:15: LA Times playful photo of a Csentery work with a young woman, probably a Mount Sac Community College student, for an exhibit of 12 pieces by 12 artists at Mount Sac.
At 3:22: Los Angeles Times, "Art Walk: A Guide to the Galleries", October 30, 1970, by Henry J. Seldis and William Wilson, leads off with favorable review blurb by HJS of Csentery show at Comora Gallery.
At 3:25: Art Week coverage of Csentery exhibit at Brand Library in Glendale, "a show that should not be missed" I don't know what Art Week is, i suppose a regional art weekly magazine?
Then numerous photos, following 4:19: "October 17, 2014 Photo shoot by Aaron and Clay Finney of sculpture lay-out" of works at "Ferenc Csentery Museum" at 26801 Crestview, Idyllwild, California. I like the photo at 4:47 and the work it depicts, and many others.... seems to be hundreds of works. Csentery was prolific. The location is in a residential neighborhood, perhaps is the artist's primary residence. No indication this is a museum open to the public. I am curious what is going to become of the large collection, but that is not for Wikipedia. There have been brilliant artists whose works were almost never sold in their lifetime, perhaps Vincent Van Gogh for one and some eastern European painter whose name I can't recall. If there is public documentation that a museum exists, even if it is a private museum and generally not open to the public, that would add to the article and help establish notability. Have there ever been tours of the museum, has it ever been included in a fundraising weekend tour like the annual tour of beautiful gardens of homes in Pasadena (see [http://hometown-pasadena.com/home-and-garden/open-days-garden-tour-pasadena/25424 this coverage of one year's garden tour)?

I stop watching at 10:00 out of 33 minute film, with film stuck on one image, perhaps i messed up the player somehow or perhaps the film plays out the soundtrack that way, i am not sure. To Aaron Finney, adding coverage information either in this AFD or in the article is fine in helping influence outcome of AFD; info shared here doesn't need already also to be in the article, which can be further developed later. (And also please see off-topic note at your Talk page). I think you have a collection of material that does establish Csentery's notability. I sorta hope the collection is opened somehow and the film is kept published on the internet and that there will be future obituary coverage and/or other retrospective coverage, but for me you've established notability already.
Also I find there is Pasadena Star-Tribune coverage, slightly garbled here: "The McBride Award for Oil, presented by the Pasadena Art Museum, was presented to Walter Askin for "Family". Douglas Bond was given the Past President's Award for his oil, "Dollie". and Ferenc Csentery was presented with the New Member's award for his aluminum sculpture "Unfilled A." Fittingly the museum is placing the padlock on its door with an exhibition by a group of local artists...." at hard to read newspaper archive page for June 10, 1969. Not clear if Pasadena Art Museum was then acquiring a Csentery work, or if it has since acquired any; it is a significant museum and if it or other regional museums did hold a Csentery work, that would help further establish notability.

Overall, I think Wikipedia would keep article on a new artist now, with comparable coverage, like if this artist's exhibitions and coverage were in 2013 rather than around 1970. And, notability is not temporary (wp:NTEMP). Doesn't meet wp:PROF, right, because he was not a professor, but seems to meet wp:ARTIST and/or the gold standard general guideline, wp:GNG. So I do solidly stay with "Keep" opinion. --do ncr am 17:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Hirshhorn is the major American museum for sculpture. I've verified his works are in their collection. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the maintainers consideration, I have updated the article with specific citations and additional revisions/information. --AaronFinney (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would change my !vote but I need to see this article meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which I think it can do. Someone provide 2-3 published sources of information which are about this artist. This could be an announcement that his work is featured, an interview with him, a critique of his style, or anything else with him as the subject and which was published anywhere. I am not seeing these kind of sources right now. If anyone needs more time to look, then ask for it, and perhaps instead of deleting this article, we could WP:USERFY the article for now if those sources are coming soon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing the article and afd discussion. There are sources cited in the article which I believe provide the information you're looking for, most notably citation #8, "Smith, David (1970). DRAWINGS AND GRAPHICS BY PAUL DARROW, SCULPTURE BY FERENC CSENTERY. California Institute Of Technology. Baxter Art Gallery". This is a published work from Caltech which contains a detailed profile of the artist - his early personal life, a discussion of his style (including specifics about technique and materials), and the philosophy behind his form - written by the founder of the Baxter Art Gallery at Caltech. Several of the newspaper articles and the Artweek magazine article do highlight his works as featured and/or award-winning within the exhibitions they were a part of. --AaronFinney (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doncram gives a good analysis of the article and there are sufficient reliable sources to establish WP:ARTIST #4. --I am One of Many (talk) 09:10, 15 November 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 03:19, 16 November 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 10:20, 25 November 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. There is no possible delete closure on the !votes given, although I note Secret's comment. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Nationalist Party (UK)

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

Non notable, defunct party without any notable or important electoral results, no evidence of significant role in English or British politics, nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections, and no evidence of credible third party sources proving notability as measured by Wikipedia guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 09:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's defunct is a stupid argument. So are the vast majority of parties that have articles on Wikipedia including many very famous ones (Whigs, Liberals etc) - it's a non-argument.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that is a repository of knowledge. Researchers and readers that come across New Nationalist Party elsewhere or even in Wikipedia are supposed to find out more.... where?

Nominator says there is "no evidence of credible third party sources". What? BBC News, Searchlight, Birmingham City Council, Electoral Commission - not reliable?!!

Nominator says "nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections". Again, same applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, but the article does make it clear that this party was dissolved in 2009 so what's surprisingh about that. Another non-argument.

No "notable or important electoral results" - well it didn't win that's for sure, but this also applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, just within UK.

The NNP was a significant though temporary development in the history of far right politics in the UK and an important part in the narrative of the break up of the BNP. Sharon Ebanks and others invovled in it have been major players in all of this.

It should be noted that the nominator has embarked on a crusade to delete a whole series of articles on political parties that he deems non-notable; when an AfD is declined, he returns later and makes another nomination, and another. There does not seem to be any effort to actually assess what significance a party has/had or to consider any of them within a wider context. Emeraude (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emeraude, your first point invalidates the rant which follows. Yes, the Whigs are defunct, but they are demonstrably notable and made quite an impact on British political history. Can you answer the direct question - "Is the New Nationalist Party making an impact on British political history"?

As for the wider point about being on some kind of crusade against Wikipedia articles; again, you are wrong. I am aware that there are very well regarded Wikipedia policies against this site being a collection of indiscriminate material. I am merely keeping up that policy brief: Wikipedia is not a dump for every single piece of human knowledge. doktorb _words^deeds 15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. If the first reason you give for deleting this article is that the party is defunct, then it's entirely logical that other defunct parties should also go. You're not suggesting that - and neither am I - but is's a spurious argument to put up as your main rationale. I noticed that in the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination) you stated that "The Whigs are self evidently notable"; "demonstrably notable" is a bit of an improvement, but neither is a counter to me saying that being defunct is not a rationale for deletion. As for your crusade, it certainly seems that way. It is true that there a number of so-called parties that really are just one person having a bit of fun and, by and large, these could be deleted, but in this case (and Libertarian Party) we are dealing with genuine parties that have had some part, however small, in the deveopment of (right wing) politics in the UK and to delete them leaves readers in total ignorance when they come across their names in other Wikipedia articles, or in the real world and they want Wikipedia to give some information. It's minor role, compared to the Whigs, is amply reflected in the minimal ampount of space that the article occupies. Emeraude (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that User:Keresaspa, a long time and respected editor with considerable expertise on right wing extremism, has added detail to the article, including more references to add to those which you earlier falsely described as having "no evidence of credible third party sources". Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emeraude, you are focusing on one element of my nomination without looking at the whole. This party is a) not notable, and b) defunct. The latter would not be worth much as a reason to delete the article *on its own* were it not for the first factor. As I have said, and you have ignored, defunct parties such as the Whigs are clearly notable, their history speaks for themselves. I ask again, as you have ignored, can you answer the direct question "Is this party notable?" doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, being defunct is of no relevance whatsoever and it does not strengthen your first assertion that the party is not notable. It is worth looking at Wikipedia:Notability here which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Emeraude (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no idea of why doktorbuk keep nominating an AfD on the basis of importance (which may not be a valid criteria for an AfD nomination), ignoring the fact that a subject is notable, if it has received significant coverages in reliable sources. Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability not on the basis of achievement alone. Wikicology (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. For me some of these nominations do have merit but this one clearly has the requisite multiple reliable third party sources. Keresaspa (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret ^account 23:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's note I really don't see where it meets WP:GNG, all the sources at a quick glance reads like passing mentions. I relisted it in order to evaluate the sources further and I'm strongly against any non-admin closure here . Secret ^account 23:26, 3 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free England Party

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

Whilst there are many citations here, I cannot find any notability or importance for this party. No credible role in English politics, no notable results or personalities, nothing that I can see which justifies a page in Wikipedia when measured by notability guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 09:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The word 'defunct' does not exist in this deletion proposal User:Emeraude doktorb _words^deeds 21:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand WP:GNG. Subject of an article don't have to achieve a notable result alone to merit a page on wikipedia. All that is required are coverages in reliable sources as clearly stated by WP:GNG.
Keep: Subject of the article meet WP:GNG. It is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, that subject of an article must achieve a notable result alone to merit a page on wikipedia and it may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, reliable sourcing is the most important and critical factor for an AfD nomination. Wikicology (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established. Far exceeds what i would suggest for a general notability standard for political parties. --do ncr am 05:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:55, 30 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countryside Party (UK)

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

Nothing to indicate importance, defunct organisation without any notable political results that I can find, barely any indication of credible third party coverage, no role in any recent by-elections and no significant role in any UK general election. Nothing to show that they should have a Wikipedia article when measured by Wikipedia notability guidelines doktorb _words^deeds 09:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator. All party articles targeted seem to have been about registered political parties. This one may or may not have less references immediately available. But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG has been shown by other editors once they get around to responding, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other deletion campaigns--series of related AFDs--put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those other campaigns, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs in a campaign are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. --do ncr am 21:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:51, 30 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Great Britain Party

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

Defunct organisation which has no lasting notability or cultural significance, no evidence of electoral success, no evidence of credible third party sources, no role in any political debate that I can find, and certainly nothing at or since the general election in 2010. Nothing to indicate importance, and no reason to have page on Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 09:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Emeraude, as the coverage (so called) shows that the party achieved nothing of anything important, your point is invalid. doktorb _words^deeds 17:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire - the general notability guideline, which I have quoted in full, make no mention of achievement. Emeraude (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:04, 30 November 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. Secret ^account 03:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Beckham Catch

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

This catch does not have lasting notability. It was a great catch and maybe the catch of the 2014 season, but it did not change the outcome of the game or season. It does not have the notability of a play like Helmet Catch or The Catch (American football). Natg 19 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly unremarkable doktorb _words^deeds 08:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Time for the immaculate deletion. Great catch, but of no real significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing this early-game catch ended up saving was a few viewers from switching over to The Good Wife in the end since the Giants ended up losing. Great catch, but otherwise an otherwise unremarkable score. Nate • (chatter) 22:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hell of catch, but not worth an article. If it would of happened towards the end of the game and was a game winning/tying touchdown, then yes keep. Overall lack of notability.--Rockchalk717 01:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of continuing coverage of subject play; the proper place for a mention is the team season article. As noted by Clarityfiend above, this was no "Immaculate Reception." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be sure, it was a great catch that generated a lot of buzz. However, I doubt that this will have any lasting notability. If it does, the article can be recreated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary sources can't exist yet (it just happened a few days ago), so it's not notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 3 December 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. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Networked swarming warfare

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

Basically represents a book summary. No coverage from independent reliable sources. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is not sufficient for deletion. It's not a book summary but an important military theory of the Chinese Army. There are more independent reliable sources in the Chinese version. Some are listed as follows.

网络化集群作战,解放军报,2004.01.20.
网络化集群作战透析,解放军报,2006.04.11.
霍大军：《网络化集群作战》，军事科学出版社，2009.
霍大军：《网络化集群作战研究》，国防大学出版社，2013.
《科学发展观与新世纪新阶段国防和军队建设》，国防大学出版社，2007.
张著军：《金戈铁马:军事学分册》，中国言实出版社，2008— Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzWilhelmGuderian (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HeinzWilhelmGuderian: could you please provide the URL of the Chinese version of this article? It is not linked to this one through wikidata. This would help with the improvement of the article being discussed here. Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 03:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tucoxn:I'm sorry to see your message so late. I have a complete Chinese electronic version of the Networked Swarming Warfare. I can send you if you need. My email address is fhzsmatrix@126.com.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy There is an article on Network-centric warfare that could be a good model for this article should enough reliable sources be found. However, I do not see reliable sources on NSW, which, if this is a new model, should appear in military-related sources. If no English-language sources are available, then I would suggest holding off until they become available, so that there is something here for users of the English-language WP. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 20 November 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 07:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While network-centric warfare is similar as an article, networked swarming warfare should not be merged into it; they are vary different concepts. I also have a difficult time finding sources for this theory but a few are available in addition to the one cited in the article:

-Huo Dajun: "Network warfare research clusters," National Defense University Press, 2013.

-Huo Dajun: "Network cluster operations", Military Science Press, 2009.

-Staff written: "Networked cluster operations dialysis", China Network, April 11, 2006.

In conclusion, it's difficult to say whether this subject is notable or not but currently no consensus exists to delete it. - tucoxn\^talk 02:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no requirement that sources be available conveniently (on-line, in English); the existence of Chinese language off-line sources suffice. I "assume good faith" that User:HeinzWilhelmGuderian's evaluation and reading of Chinese sources is correct. Further reason to Keep from User:Tucoxn's assessment that it is different from Network-centric warfare (which i added as a "See also" link in the article). It's a relatively new article; tag it for development but Keep is best, IMHO. --do ncr am 03:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram, maybe in the future someone can look at the sources at see if it should be merged to Swarming (military), but for now I'm trusting HeinzWilhelmGuderian's assessment. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:42, 2 December 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 23:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled Moon (band)

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Looking at the sources: Allmusic ref is just a listing. MTV listing is not independent. (Uploading your promotional bio to MTV is not an indication of notability.) 3 is the frontman talking about the band, not independent. Next 3 are mostly about other bands and is there to verify membership of other bands. 7 does not have significant coverage. 8 is not a reliable source. 9 is not a reliable source and the coverage is not significant. 10 is their label, not independent. A search found nothing better. Closest to WP:BAND they come is by having 3 bluelinked members but looking at them shows the band falls short. Johansson is not notable independent of Yngwie Malmsteen. Chuck Wrights notability is dependent on the bands he has been a member of. Rieckermann redirects to his band, he is not independently notable. Last afd closed no consensus due to no competent participation after nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is written in such a promotional way that the reader gets the impression that Spelled Moon is a mega band; however, they have only released one EP containing three singles, while promising that a full-length album will be released soon. If an album is released, and it performs well, then the band might become notable, but at this point in time I cannot establish notability. Looking at the criteria listed at WP:BAND, only two deserve to be examined:

1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."

6. "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

I don't see how criterion #1 is met. Apart from studying the sources provided in the article, I performed a lengthy and fruitless Google search, both in English and in Spanish (the band leader was born in Argentina, so there is some coverage from that country, but not reliable, and it's typically copy-pasted). The Rock N Roll Industries magazine seems like a reliable source to me, with nearly 90,000 likes on their Facebook page, but it's just an interview, so no independent facts about the band are provided. And the sources go downhill after that. The Patrick Johansson biography by Zildjian does not even mention the band, even though he's allegedly a member. The article by Schenectady Gazette does not mention the band. In the Chuck Wright interview (a YouTube video), Chuck Wright does not mention the band. The Radio Rock Concierto para Ell@s feature has minimal coverage and very questionable reliability. The two Power Metal USA features have significant coverage, although one of them is a mere interview, and Power Metal USA's Facebook page has fewer than 500 likes, and it's just two years old, so it cannot be deemed reliable. The other sources have minimal coverage, and they lack reliability and/or independence.

Criterion #6 is definitely not met despite an apparent effort made by the creator of the article for that purpose. The band is mentioned in Patrick Johansson's article only because of this edit. Likewise, the band is mentioned in Chuck Wright's article only because of this edit. Dontreader (talk) 05:40, 14 November 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 17:26, 16 November 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 07:43, 25 November 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. czar ⨹ 00:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Southworth (baseball, born 1917)

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

Standard minor league baseball player, so he fails WP:BASE/N. Article references are sparse. His death was untimely and tragic, but I'm not sure he merits an article. I'm not an expert on military decorations, so the honors he won in that regard may be his saving grace here. Alex (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is actually a reasonable amount written about him, e.g. this New York Times article, 7-8 pages in this book, some pages in another book. He definitely doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:BASEBALL/N, but may squeak by via WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the article on his dad, Billy Southworth. The information on him can be added to a "family" section in that article like has been done with other second generation ballplayers. Spanneraol (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Change to keep based on Rlendog's sources below. Spanneraol (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although he died half a century before the internet, I am finding a good deal of coverage. Besides the article referenced in "External Links" there is a New York Times article about him and his father, another full article about him. several articles covering his death including this, a brief article here which also notes he won a minor league MVP award, and a brief mention here which nonetheless reports on a particualr distinction he apparently had of being the first player in organized baseball to enlist. With Carity's book references, he easily passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 22:38, 1 December 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 delete by GB fan (talk · contribs) under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Premila

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

One event BLP, doesn't meet notability. EBY (talk) 06:53, 25 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Amran Wan Hussin

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

One event BLP, doesn't meet notability. EBY (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been speedied like all the other articles created by this user regarding the Ukraine air crash. As EBY says on the creater's talk page: "Dying in a plane crash, while lamentable, does not give a person notability for a Wikipedia article"...Bikeroo (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:1E. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:35, 2 December 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 delete. WP:A7. No indication of the significance at all. Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watson pablov

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

Doesn't meet GNG. EBY (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy A7: A WP:SPA article by User:Watsonventura, indicating likely conflict of interest. It is also an unsourced WP:BLP and makes no claim of significance. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are also turning up no evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SPA and WP:COI are not reasons to delete. I will be deleting the article itself very shortly. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 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 delete by GB fan (talk · contribs) under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Amirah

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

Doesn't meet GNG. EBY (talk) 06:51, 25 November 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 delete. Speedy deleted (A7) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lavoie(Art Director)

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

None of these art director credits create notability Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. No indication of notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:28, 26 November 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Equality of the Sexes

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

Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain text, as described in Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. This is not an encyclopedia article as is, say, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, but a copy/paste of primary source with a cursory introduction. It would need a complete re-write and/ deletion of all but assertion of existence to meet quality standards. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deleted the copy/paste of the actual text of the essay from the article, which took me only a couple of minutes, even using a smart phone. The essay is notable as one of the earliest expressions of feminist thought, and significant coverage can be found in this biography of its author. We really shouldn't delete poorly written articles about clearly notable topics. Instead, we should improve them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also finding quite a bit about this, to the point where it seems to be one of her most important works since it sets up the structure for her later works. It's referenced quite frequently from what I can see and republished extremely frequently in various textbooks and readers (by mainstream academic publishers and the like). ([16], [17], [18], [19]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs some serious work from someone familiar with the subject matter, but from what I can see this is one of Murray's most important works and it's been discussed in a ton of academic sources and cited with regularity in many scholarly works on the topic of feminism. ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) I'll drop a note on WP:FEMINISM and see if anyone there can work on the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, this will need to be moved to remove the quotation marks, since we typically do not put those on article titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied the raw source text has been removed, and agree it is a notable subject. I no longer support deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough to warrant inclusion, weak analyses. See Politics_and_the_English_Language for an example of a notable and sufficiently studied essay. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is notable, but it does need a lot more work before it'll look as well laid out as that essay's article does. Just because an article isn't large or contain goo-gobs of sourcing currently on the page does not mean that it's automatically non-notable, although I will say that the current sourcing on the article is enough to assert notability, especially since many of them assert that it's the author's most notable work and laid the groundwork for her later essays on the same topic. In any case, we shouldn't throw out a perfectly notable topic just because it will need a lot of work to get to the level that other articles about essays are at. That's sort of the converse of how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS usually works: just because another article is more fully fleshed out doesn't mean that disposing of another article is the right course of action. It just means that this article hasn't gotten enough TLC yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a synopsis of the essay to the article, so anyone coming in will have something to work with as opposed to having to write out something themselves. I want to again stress that this essay is notable and that there are multiple sources that refer to it as Murray's most notable work, as well as at least one article in a peer-reviewed journal that focuses solely on this essay and an article in the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review that focuses heavily on it as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tokyogirl79, for writing a good synopsis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 28 November 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 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haven't found a lot of pieces solely about the work (though there's this), but I'm not sure that matters after looking at the way the first page of GBooks treat the essay. This is how they introduced the work: "pioneering two-part essay", "landmark essay", "now famous essay", and so on. Since these reliable, published books consider it notable, deletion is out of the question. The question of whether it should be redirected is a matter of how many sources can be found on the topic, which is a discussion for the talk page. czar ⨹ 17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been cleaned up and appears to pass WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wp:HEY at the very least. Probably a keep when it was nominated but certainly passes the GNG by now. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79 and czar. - tucoxn\^talk 14:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant discussion among numerous secondary sources over a sustained period of time. — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 1 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AABSyS Information Technology

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

Contested speedy deletion. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The single source cited appears to be a trivial mention. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company for which multiple searches turn up nothing beyond routine and primary listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the speedy-deletion was removed as the sole contribution by another WP:SPA, which raises puppetry concerns. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - All promo created by an SPA, All belongs far away from the 'pedia as humanely possible! –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sam ^Sing! 23:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale given; not notable. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 1 December 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 merge to American Academy of Pediatrics. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Safety Camp

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

Zero references, and I'm not sure the fact that Jim Pirri is in it is a valid assertion of notability, the rest of the cast is red linked. I think a mention at Jim's article would be sufficient. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. It's verifiable as a teaching aid and not something for wide for-profit distribution.[25][26] It might be mentioned within the article on American Academy of Pediatrics as one of their programs, but it lacks the level of notability required by guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:36, 7 November 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 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Schmidt. Peterborough Street (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with merging relevant information into American Academy of Pediatrics. Peterborough Street (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Academy of Pediatrics - could potentially warrant a mention there, particularly if a short section describing TIPP can be created. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me... Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice.

Merge to American Academy of Pediatrics as per AdventurousSquirrel--Cailil ^talk 13:23, 25 November 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Fitzgerald

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

Promotional article lacking in 3rd party sources fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG .The article is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet AUTHOR or GNG. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:33, 2 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Ren (alternative medicine technique)

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

promotionalism for a remarkably unlikely alternative medicine technique,. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of good sources. Most sources I see matches partial name to the (legitimately notable) TCM company Tongrentang. Some YouTube videos claim the technique was featured on Fox News and NBC News but I am not much convince it is substantial coverage. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is mentioned briefly in a few books but there is nothing significant in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFRINGE. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:03, 26 November 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) Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neteller

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

Originally prodded by me under the following rationale, which I think is still valid: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." Deprodded by anon with the following edit summary: "Opposed deletion, suggested redirecting and possibly merging this to Optimal Payments". I don't think that much can be merged there, however, as that company is about as unnotable as this - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal Payments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 12 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - they actually sponsor English Premier League side Crystal Palace FC, their name is emblazoned on their shirts and hence are on TV every week. Online ticket purchases for matches go through them. They are obviously pretty noteworthy. Tris2000 (talk) 14:16, 24 November 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, czar ⨹ 02:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When the founders are charged with facilitating "the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds from United States citizens to the owners of various internet gambling companies located overseas" by the United States Attorney, Southern District of New York,[27], we're talking big business. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 25 November 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. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Jones (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

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

Tagged for notability concerns for four years now. Sources don't exist to expand this article, but expanding would first require an established notability, which this character doesn't seem to have. Gloss 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. If there isn't enough content for a standalone article then merge into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not. There is also not enough sources, unless you've found some? Gloss 06:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots she was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable outside the series. The article as is is definitely just fansite material. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:53, 12 November 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, Dea db eef 02:08, 18 November 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, czar ⨹ 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters like other Degrassi character articles. Not enough sources for a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:25, 2 December 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 redirected. Secret ^account 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Anthony

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

The topic of the article, Hurricane Anthony, is a fictitious tropical cyclone that serves as a backdrop for an episode of CSI: Miami. The subject fails to have any significant coverage, and aside from IMDB, CSI: Miami-specific pages, and streaming links, there are no substantive resources that would lend Hurricane Anthony any notability. Should a merge occur, the most relevant article is at CSI: Miami (season 2), but aside from unverifiable 'meteorological' data on this fictitious storm, there is nothing relevant and new that could be merged. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:54, 25 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)

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

No longer functioning party (search for that evidence here - https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx). No notable electoral result, no credible third party coverage, no evidence of notability during their brief existence, and now they are removed from the electoral register, there is no chance of them performing anything important enough to justify their continued existence on Wikipedia. Cannot find anything notable enough within London politics, let alone English politics. doktorb _words^deeds 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). But the assertion above that the Electoral Commission says this party is no longer functioning is simply untrue. The Electoral Commission gives the date of registration as 10/10/2012 and does not say that the party has deregistered. Searching registered parties' annual returns shows the party made a return in 2013. And seeing as it contested this year's European Parliament elections it is false to say that they had no evidence of notability "during their brief existence". Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of a number--about 10?-- of UK political party AFDs simultaneously running, opened by same nominator. All seem to be about registered political parties; all or most have fielded candidates in elections and received votes; all have received coverage. This one may or may not have less references immediately available. But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG is shown if/when editors respond, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those other campaigns, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others, including this one. --do ncr am 21:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw any nomination.
This "party" is not notable, fact. They are no longer active, fact. They did not achieve anything in the few months they existed, fact. They may not form again, so we must judge them on what the "achieved". The evidence is nothing of any notable record, whatever. Being written about does not equal being notable. Not being notable is against Wikipedia policy. Being against Wikipedia policy means they must be deleted. It really is that simple. doktorb _words^deeds 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, per WP:GNG being written about is practically the definition of notability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:50, 30 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Party

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

A curiosity of a party, yes, but not notable. Only present as an also-ran in one specific kind of elections, no cultural importance, no notability, almost no credible third party coverage. Nothing to indicate importance, and nothing to suggest is should remain on Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 01:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has also ran in council elections in Reading, as the article says with a source. He ran in two European elections, the £5,000 to run making it a notable repeat feat. With the range of far-right/left parties featured on this encyclopedia without even running in any large-scale elections, I don't really see the harm in keeping the Roman Party here '''tAD''' (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete this and anyone later looking at the articles on the constituencies contested by the party will be left in total ignorance about what the results show. If you can't look up Roman Party in Wikipedia, where can you? Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator. All seem to have been registered political parties. This one fielded a candidate in at least one election, received thousands of votes, and has received coverage. As with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG has been shown when editors responded, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those other campaigns, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs in a campaign are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. --do ncr am 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, as judged by significant coverage in reliable sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, all sources are passing mentions, with the exception of one in-depth source in the local newspaper, which isn't enough. Secret ^account 23:35, 3 December 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. No opposition or changes in two weeks. czar ⨹ 23:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Harris (author/musician)

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

Recreated BLP - no reliable sources to establish notability, and possibly none to be found. —Swpb^talk 14:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add them. Please don't delete until I do. I think being on a major record label, touring for 16 years, being on a hit album, and being an author is notable. Will add supporting references today. JoeBeertap (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article will not be deleted today. AfD discussions typically run at least seven days. Removing the discussion notice on the article is NEVER appropriate and will get you blocked, for good reason. We can't rely on your promise to fix the article as reason to keep it. —Swpb^talk 14:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added significant additional references and information as requested. Thank you for allowing me to further update the article. If there are any other concerns please let me know and I'll address them. I spent significant time in the New York music scene and am volunteering my time to add details of the New York music scene in the late '80s that is noticeably missing in Wikipedia. Thanks again. JoeBeertap (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no mainstream references, just reviews of their work. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Billboard isn't a mainstream reference, and it should be, then what do you define a mainstream reference to be? Happy to add a few. JoeBeertap (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Dirty Looks achieved success on the Billboard 200 chart" .. you're giving evidence that the band was on the Billboard 200. There are no references in reputable journals/newspapers/whatever that the band member is of significance. Note: James Harris is one of 60-odd people who was a member of the band (apparently the only band member that has an own article) - in the case of James Harris 2-3 years out of 18 years of active existence of the band, and that band, not the member had a mention in a billboard list (I can not access billboard from here - is that mention actually at the same time that James Harris was active?). Now tell me if that is even worth a significant mention in the page of a band member. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the band thinks so. There is a page devoted exclusively to him on their website. I'll work on adding references from "reputable journals/newspapers/whatever" on him. By your definition, what is reputable and what is not reputable? Thanks for the help. JoeBeertap (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparently the band thinks so." - I forgot to mention that the reference had to be independent of the source - You've got thát right for Billboard at least. With reputable I mean that the source should not be an independent blog with no fact checking, or an independent forum post - Anything from the abovementioned 'newspapers' search? (adapeted newspapers search on the name only - does not seem to give anything that belongs to the person that is the subject of this discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 November 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, Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources, or any other indications of notability as either a musician or as an author. A two year stint as drummer in a heavy metal band known for its "revolving door" membership is unpersuasive. A profile on the band's page is not independent, and the assortment of low quality references now in the article do not convince me of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 25 November 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 merge to Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kubura (currency)

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

This is about a made-up currency. The article lacks the notability. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. There are two sources cited, but one of them is a dead link, and the other one is the web page of the authority that issues those banknotes (not reliable source). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića. There is insufficient RS coverage for a stand alone article, however the one source is probably acceptable for the purpose of establishing certain facts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 18 November 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 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (or just plain redirect) to Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića, as suggested above; there doesn't seem to be enough coverage in independent reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. Sideways713 (talk) 11:28, 25 November 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 Degrassi characters. Wifione ^Message 09:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Brodie

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

Non notable character and article has only three poor references all with broken links. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The fact that the article needs improvement is not a criteria for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it doesn't properly demonstrate or source any notability in the first place is a criterion for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Degrassi characters, I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:38, 1 December 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 Teen Choice Awards#Music. (Not sure how useful this redirect will be since it's so specialized and there's nothing at the target. I'll also preemptively remind that the rest of the awards in this category might be better candidates for bold redirect than AfD, given this precedent.) czar ⨹ 00:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Choice Award for Choice Music - Electronic Dance Music Artist

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

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Swpb^talk 01:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's one of the awards that Teen Choice currently gives out in the summer each year. In its third year since its inception, an award titled "Choice Music - EDM Song" was introduced to be alongside it along with the rest of the genre awards. I've already provided articles for the Country awards that Teen Choice has in its Music category and it would be very useful for it to have another one compared to the Movie and TV categories. DepressedPer (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teen Choice Awards#Music Yes, it's awarded, but usually in the 'awards presented before the show' section which gets a ticker boilerplate before a commercial break; not notable beyond this as the ceremony is based on ballot stuffing where biggest name wins no matter the talent in the category. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teen Choice Awards. The awards and its winners gets coverage and have articles but to detail every winner and nominee for each category is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in line with the others. It's relatively common for us to have a list or table of award winners and potentially nominees of all types on the entry for the awards themselves. To dive into a separate entry for only one award at a time is a slap in the face to WP:IINFO and by further expression and extension within WP:DISCRIMINATE as an "indiscriminate list". ♪ Tstorm (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I state redirect under the assumption that structure exists within the Teen Choice Awards article to add it. Even an article on the music awards on the whole might be suitable as a matter of organization to keep the lengthy histories from cluttering up other articles, but the extreme level of detail for this specific nominated article is unreasonable. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 11:15, 26 November 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 delete. Deleted by User:Chillum per CSD G10, "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will.i.am and Danny O'Donoghue

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

Inappropriate detailed BLP fork, even for popular music performers. Whatever is appropriate belongs in the artists' biographies. twitter is not an acceptable source for gossip. Snow delete requested; I dont think it quite qualifies for speedy, but I'd have no objection/.� DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since when do we have articles on relationships? Also, poorly sourced. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This looks like it's a pretty serious BLP issue, in that we have someone using Wikipedia as a gossip page to spread what looks like it's a rumor at best. I can't find anything to suggest that this has any legitimacy in the slightest and even if it did, we don't make tabloid-esque pages on this sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the page creator a pretty stern warning to not create any further pages like this in the future. However given that this page (and its draftspace copy) are the only pages they created, I am mildly tempted to just outright block them for making these BLP violations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 25 November 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. @Rms125a@hotmail.com and Kierzek, "just not notable" is a deletion argument to avoid. This said, consensus is to delete. czar ⨹ 00:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ah Quin

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

Delete: non-notable (WP:NMUSIC) Quis separabit? 15:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable; maybe someday but not at this time. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 17 November 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 00:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough coverage to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:14, 25 November 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.