Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 September	23 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Köszönöm

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

I can't find any references to support the notability of the song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 September 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 23:57, 22 September 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.

Delete I couldn't find anything either. Apparently it is not notable enough to be mentioned in either the Gwar article or in the Gwar discography article, although someone has placed it in the Template:GWAR. Fails WP:MUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rivers (American football)

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

Player who has never played professionally, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with reason "notable college career. Added references", yet career shows otherwise. GauchoDude (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh really? Not a notable college career? His "career shows otherwise"? The guy is in the top 20 for career college receptions. That along with the references I added makes hiim notable to me.--Yankees10 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yankees10, please adhere to Wikipedia:Civility, one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Your addition of two sources (one of which from a "HawaiiWarriorBeat.Com Editor") make him notable to you, I don't doubt that, however we are looking for general consensus. I personally find it hard to believe that a generally notable person would have just a handful of sources. GauchoDude (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there was nothing uncivil about my comment.--Yankees10 16:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG as he has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple mainstream media outlets, including the items cited above by Yankees10, so as to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Yankees10 and Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no mjaor awards or records) or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in the NFL or other major league). I did find significant coverage from the two major newspapers in Hawaii about the subject's college career, and some lesser, but still significant coverage from the run-up to the 2008 Sugar Bowl from multiple news outlets outside Hawaii. Personally, I like to see more coverage from outside the hometown/home region when making determinations of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but on balance, I believe the subject satisfies the GNG standard in this case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anae

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with reason "Currently the offensive coordinator of a top 25 team", which does not imply notability as shown above. GauchoDude (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty clearly passes GNG [1][2][3][4][5][6] Thats just the first two pages of a google search. Did you even bother doing research with this one?--Yankees10 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Offensive coordinator at a Division I university. Significant coverage in multiple mainstream media outlets, as referenced by Yankees10, goes far beyond routine coverage and is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Division I FBS offensive coordinator. In my world, coordinators and assistant coaches, whether they work in an FBS program or a Division III program get no special consideration: in the absence of a major award or prior playing career that satisfies WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON, they must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Per Yankee10's links above and my own cursory review of Google search results, the subject clearly satisfies the GNG standard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Daniels

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NHOOPS after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with no reason given. GauchoDude (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - College basketball head coaches actually do meet WP:NCOLLATH, which reads: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1) Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, 2)Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame), or 3) Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Rikster2 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NCOLLATH. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the phrase "Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: ..." as using a serial comma, meaning the entire phrase is subject to the list following for which the subject does not meet. In any case, GNG supersedes which has yet to be shown outside of WP:ROUTINE coverage. GauchoDude (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you are not reading it correctly. It is saying that head coaches, well known assistants and players who (with list). The clue is the third item which reads "not just a player for a notable team." It doesn't say "player or coach for a notable team. Rikster2 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster and Jrcla2 as an NCAA Division I head coach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2. I am One of Many (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Mathews

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NHOOPS after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed because "he is notable", with no supporting evidence or reasoning given. GauchoDude (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like most NCAA Division I men's basketball head coaches, the subject is going to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. A Google keyword search for "Phil Mathews" & "San Francisco" pulled up multiple significant articles in which Mathews was the primary subject. Here's a selection: (1) Los Angeles Times multiple articles; (2) San Francisco Chronicle (3/9/2004); (3) Press Enterprise (3/14/2013); (4) San Francisco Chronicle (12/18/1998); (5) Los Angeles Daily News (2/26/2010). This is the tip of the iceberg -- I have not run searches of Google News Archive or Newspapers.com because I don't think it's necessary. I'm sure other editors will find multiple feature articles about the subject, too. This article should not be deleted; it just needs loving care from a college basketball fan to build a respectable C-class article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the sources listed by Dirtlawyer1, college basketball head coaches actually do meet WP:NCOLLATH, which reads: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1) Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, 2)Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame), or 3) Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Rikster2 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs Dirtlawyer provided sufficiently counter the nominator's reason for deletion as Mathews being a non-notable head coach (he is). Jrcla2 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read the phrase "Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: ..." as using a serial comma, meaning the entire phrase is subject to the list following for which the subject does not meet. If you feel GNG is met, which it may meet with new evidence, then please add to article. As many of those articles seem to be about him getting hired or fired from a club, I would be wary of WP:ROUTINE which I believe those may fall under. GauchoDude (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GD, hiring and firing articles may be WP:ROUTINE when they consist of a sentence or two in the "transactions" section of the sports page, but hirings and firings are 5 to 20-year events that often lead to very solid feature articles about the subject coach which include nice summaries of the coach's entire coaching history, including notable successes and failures. As for satisfying GNG regarding Phil Mathews, I am one of the tougher GNG/AfD analyzers and I think the standard is clearly met. If you want articles about subjects other than Mathews' hirings and firings, I suggest you look over the compilation of Los Angeles Times articles to which I linked above. If you want more after that, I am happy to run the Google News Archive and Newspapers.com searches, and provide more. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you are not reading it correctly. It is saying that head coaches, well known assistants and players who (with list). The clue is the third item which reads "not just a player for a notable team." It doesn't say "player or coach for a notable team. Rikster2 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of the article meet WP:SPORTCRIT and also meet WP:NCOLLATH. There are significant WP:RS that establish its notability Wikicology (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dirtlawyer1, Rikster, and Jrcla2 as an NCAA Division I head coach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cleveland

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NHOOPS after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed on "D1 basketball head coach. Obviously notable", which is not met. GauchoDude (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG anyway:[7][8][9][10][11]--Yankees10 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the sources listed by Yankees10, head coaches actually do meet WP:NCOLLATH, which reads: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1) Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, 2)Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame), or 3) Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Rikster2 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and NCOLLATH, with the refs supported by Yankees10. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read the phrase "Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: ..." as using a serial comma, meaning the entire phrase is subject to the list following for which the subject does not meet. Additionally, above GNG evidence seems lukewarm. Of the 5 articles provided, one leads to a broken page and two I find as WP:ROUTINE about him either joining or leaving a team. GauchoDude (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you are not reading it correctly. It is saying that head coaches, well known assistants and players who (with list). The clue is the third item which reads "not just a player for a notable team." It doesn't say "player or coach for a notable team. Rikster2 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yankees10, Rikster, and Jrcla2 as an NCAA Division I head coach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the modern media era, the overwhelming majority of Division I men's basketball coaches are going to receive sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG; this subject clearly does so per the examples listed by Yankees10 above. FYI, I have always interpreted the third clause of WP:NCOLLATH as effectively incorporating the GNG standard, with the caveat further that some portion of the coverage be national and not just hometown newspaper or in-state coverage; otherwise, the standard embedded in the third clause is hopelessly vague. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 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 Sarma (food). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arambašići

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

The subject does not appear to be a notable dish/recipe. Safiel (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarma (food), where arambašići are already discussed as one of the many related recipes composed of a large leaf wrapped around a filling (they simply called them stuffed grape leaves where I grew up). There are some book sources for arambašići apparent at GBooks, but not enough to make a case for a separate article, especially given the lack of content in the current version. At some point we may need to explore the relationship and demarcation between the articles for Sarma (food) and Dolma, but that's not necessary to resolve this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarma as suggested. There are sources in its local language but no-one interested (and possibly no benefit for the project) in developing it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarma (food) seems the most sensible option, based on Arxiloxos's suggestion and my thoughts on the article's talk page when I contested the speedy delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We often redirect food articles to variant names, and I would follow that precedent. See also WP:CHEAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 15:29, September 24, 2014‎

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

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

The result was Delete. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW and because of BLP issues. Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn Jeurissen

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

No reliable sources appear to be available for this individual. BLP:PROD has been declined several times without addition of reliable sources. JHCaufield - talk - 20:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is unnecessary. BLPPROD cannot be declined. The BLPPROD tag should only be removed if at least one reliable source has been added. --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was repeatedly removed, accompanied by addition of a questionable source. As per WP:BLPPROD: "If there is any doubt to the applicability of this procedure to the article, then it is preferable to use another deletion process." I haven't seen any reliable sources for it yet but BLPPROD clearly isn't working here at the moment. JHCaufield - talk - 13:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No notability at all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent delete - Thorough study of the article's history and its wider context lead to the conclusion that the article constituted of multiple hoaxes by or continuous cyber harassment of a person living in the Netherlands. gidonb (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also block creator. gidonb (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as there are no reliable sources to substantiate existence of this article Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:01, 26 September 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. Michig (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xperform

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

No evidence or assertion of notability for this product - it's not cited in any of the included references. —Swpb^talk 20:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 20:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topical anesthetics can be used to treat PE, as the references in this article suggest, so they are worth the mention at Premature_ejaculation#Treatments, . Maybe it is worth mentioning too in benzocaine that it can be used for this purpose. But there is nothing whatsoever notable about this particular product. The article is merely promotional. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed, it does not appear to be mentioned by name in any of the refs. Couldn't find any reliable sources covering it. ~KvnG 13:46, 24 September 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. at time of nomination, it appeared to be a delete, but given changes to article and discussion I see a keep as being prudent. Tawker (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Daniels (disambiguation)

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

Disambig page that only serves to promote one Norman Daniels. No other entries worth keeping. KonveyorBelt 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has been a discussion about the novelist, and it's only a pseudonym. How is that 'ambiguity' ordinarily handled? Certainly a person looking for the men's fiction author should not be misled to think that the philosopher was author of those paperback novels.

The disamgiguation page (or a 'hatnote') should not in itself be cited as reason for a deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation MaynardClark (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would other Wikipedians like to handle the ambiguity issue? Remember, it's about a pseudonym, not about a real author, and any mention of that pseudonym can only diminish the original subject. However, it's 'there' in the world... MaynardClark (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not really necessary. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No no no - The fiction writer was Norman A. Danberg, and HIS pseudonym was 'Norman A. Daniels' (who wrote paperback 'junk fiction' with adventure themes.

This Wikipedia article is about Norman O. Daniels, PhD., the political theorist who harmonized the controversial questions about moral responsibilities about health AND healthcare with a consistent ethical theory of justice, based upon the consequentiallist reasoning of John Rawls.

The article about disambiguation is about the likely confusion about two men who wrote with the name 'Norman Daniels' - one legitimately using his own name, and the other writing pseudonymously. MaynardClark (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - for the reasons cited above. Further, a look at the Wikipedia 'What links here' for the Norman Daniels article shows great confusion ALREADY within Wikipedia. It lists on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Norman_Daniels the following Wikipedia articles which should NOT be linked to Norman Daniels because they refer to the 'Norman A. Daniels' pseudonym of 'Norman A. Danberg'.

The Avengers (TV series)
Ben Casey
List of Ace double novels
The Black Bat
List of Ace titles in numeric series
List of Ace western double titles

That is SIX (6) - count 'em - misconnected articles which (presumably other) Wikipedians had wrongly thought refer to THIS person, a Harvard faculty member. Whether or not a Wikipedia article about Norman Danberg should be developed it outside the scope of my interest, but this discussion about the deletion of the Disambiguation page may wish to consider that Wikipedia already has six pre-existing pages wrongly attribued to Dr. Norman O. Daniels BECAUSE of the unresolved ambiguity. Of course, some folks DO resolve ambiguity for a living.

MaynardClark (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Disambiguation page which only has two names listed, one of which is currently being nominated for CSD G12, and the other links to a pseudonym of a non-notable author. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the page with an entry for Norm Daniels (American football), who is referred to as Norman Daniels in several Wikipedia season articles relating to his student career with the Michigan Wolverines between 1928 and 1932. So far as the existing entries go, the WP:G12 nomination has been dealt with by the removal of the offending material, leaving an article that could do with more independent sourcing but is adequate for someone clearly meeting WP:PROF; and I have expanded and re-referenced the other entry to a reliable source, an article entitled Daniels, Norman A by John Clute in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which I would regard in itself as a fairly strong indicator of notability, as well as rather confirming that Danberg was better known under the Daniels pseudonym rather than his actual name. I suspect that someone with enough access to specialist offline or paywalled sources could establish enough notability for a standalone article on him - but in any case, where a name (pseudonym or not) is enough of a search term to be mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, a redirect to an article with some relevant information or (as here) a disambiguation page entry linking to one or two of those articles is appropriate. PWilkinson (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This clearly meets the guidelines for a disambiguation page. All three entries are valid, i.e. have an article or meet MOS:DABMENTION. @Konveyor Belt:, have you read the guidelines for disambiguation pages? Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the nominator, at the time it was nominated for AfD there was only one other non-article entry. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, sorry, I realised that. However, WP:ATD, more entries should have been looked for, I've added more, so there are now ~~five~~ six entries. Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as it now stands it's clearly a valid and useful dab page. PamD 15:24, 29 September 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. Of note is that notions herein about article improvements can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative Project on Terrorism

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

Noncompliance, and failure to meet criteria for notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Atsme☯^Consult 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many sources discussing the IPT. Mina Ivanova says that the IPT is founded by Steven Emerson, and that the non-profit "claims to offer 'the world's most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic groups'". The Ivanova piece is found within the Clarke Rountree-edited book Venomous Speech, published by ABC-CLIO. Deepa Kumar writes that the IPT is one of the top six purveyors of anti-Muslim racism in the US, on pages 188–189 of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, published by Haymarket Books. In Speculative Security: The Politics of Pursuing Terrorist Monies, published by the University of Minnesota Press, political scientist Marieke de Goede writes about IPT in a long paragraph on page 15, and a sizable footnote on page 225, describing it as a key source of information intended to keep terrorist financing in front of the public. In Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, published by Vanderbilt University, criminologist George Michael says on page 193 that IPT is one of three NGOs that US authorities refer to with regard to the activities of radical Islam. George Michael also writes in the Middle East Quarterly that the IPT has "conducted investigations into many Islamist and terrorist groups and individuals... stirred up more hornets' nests than many government agencies... hone in on targets that broader agencies missed." Scholars Melva Underbakke and Pedro Ruz Gutierrez wrote an article published by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: "After 10-Year Investigation, U.S. Government Fails to Convict Dr. Sami Al-Arian". The article describes IPT as an authority on radical Islam, quoting "senior terrorism analyst" Brian Hecht of IPT on the case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian. I think all this coverage by high quality sources establishes notability, and the presence of Brian Hecht in a number of cites, and the absence of Steven Emerson, means that IPT cannot simply be merged to the Steven Emerson biography. The IPT article should stay. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Per Binksternet.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ reasons in my comment below. Atsme☯^Consult 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Binksternet, I'm a little confused by your vote to "keep" the article considering two months ago you stated: I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Diff is here: [12]. The foundation itself has no notability without Steven Emerson attached, and no one would know anything about it if it weren't for their own press releases, and self-published websites. Anything readers need to know about Emerson's work prior to 2006 can be found in Steven Emerson, and if it isn't there, it can be added. The IPT article is supposed to be about a notable nonprofit organization - The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation that was organized in 2006 - anything prior to that time belongs to Steven Emerson. There simply aren't enough reliable secondary sources, and no third party sources that substantiate the Foundation's notability. Notability for an organization is neither inherent, nor inherited. The "reliable" sources you cited above are not neutral, particularly Deepa Kumar. D. Pipes is more neutral. Regardless, where is the balance? There simply are no secondary sources available to present a neutral, well-balanced article. One editor violated WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH to create the infobox. As it stands now, the article is nothing more than a WP:Coatrack. If you believe the sources you cited are all that's needed to improve the article, please improve it. However, as the lead editor, I can assure you will find major obstacles trying to find reliable secondary sources that support the Foundation. All you will find are self-published press releases, original docs from Congressional hearings, and Emerson's television interviews. In fact, a while back you deleted the sections I included for neutrality as follows: (→‎Boston Marathon Bombing: delete section... this issue is of very little importance in the case. The videos posted by the two bombers were little seen. The IPT did nothing substantial here.), and also another one: (Undid revision 600924125 by Atsme (talk) The group also eats lunch. We don't tell the reader about unimportant activities such as this one with little reaction in the media.). Diffs are here: [13] The comments you made then still hold true today. The article lacks notability, so I don't understand why you are voting to keep it now. Atsme☯^Consult 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A move discussion is very different from a deletion discussion. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was easier to simply delete this one since I've already included the relevant sections to be moved to the new article, and requested collaboration, aka HELP. Atsme☯^Consult

You don't delete it before you move or after. Moving as in Moving the article to a new title or simply renaming the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You delete noncompliant articles that are riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation like this one.Atsme☯^Consult 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't delete and recreate. It's puzzling your desire here to recreate when you are seperately arguing that the topic is not notable. If it is not notable now then how would it suddenly become notable 5 minutes later when you go to recreate it?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really is sad that you can't see the problem, but then you don't edit main articles - you edit Talk pages to harass editors who do edit main articles. Do you even know how to write prose? Prior to becoming a Foundation, IPT was Steven Emerson. As IPT, the article violates policy. Read the policy. Atsme☯^Consult 14:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator above. The nomination is the delete !vote; multiple !votes are not allowed. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ A Google news search reveals 166 results.[14] and a Reliable Sources Search Engine yields 100 results (the maximum allowed). Before someone (incorrectly) cites WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to general Google searches, not Google News searches which indexes sites which tend to meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What did you search? Can you be more specific? Did you look at any of the search results? It's easy to say I did a search for IPT, and 6,000 results came back, but how are you determining reliability and neutrality? Are you searching for the Investigative Project on Terrorism because if you are, you are searching for the wrong organization. That will bring up all kinds of garbage. The only legal organization is The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, so if the word Foundation isn't coming up in your search results, your results are not accurate. That's the whole point of this delete request. The article is noncompliant starting with the first sentence. Please, can we at least try to put some effort into getting it right? Atsme☯^Consult 03:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you click on the link provided[15] Are you saying that there are two organizations, one named "Investigative Project on Terrorism" and another named "Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation"? If so, then yes my search was faulty. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - - A Quest For Knowledge Yes, and why the article has major issues. IPT is Steven Emerson, a "doing business as", a dba - him and him alone. IPT inherited Emerson's notability which is against policy. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is the nonprofit "organization" legally formed in 2006, and determined to be a charity by the IRS. The article is riddled with inaccuracies, bad sourcing, and misinformation. I've been trying to fix this mess. Atsme☯^Consult 14:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, the situation appears to be more complicated than I first thought. I'm (temporarily) striking through my keep !no vote until I have time to research this further. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm confused by all the tags. You're wanting to delete, you want to merge and you want to move. Which is it? Also, I agree with a previous comment that deleting and recreating is not necessary. If an article isn't notable now, how does recreating it change that? I would, however, agree that the article as is requires a huge makeover. That said, it is not such a daunting task that a couple of well-sourced edits couldn't fix. Kobuu (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading the various responses to this discussion and I felt that I should further explain my vote. I am not following the backstory, the edit war, or anything else. I am part of WP:Cleanup and came here because this article was listed on the main Clean Up page. My question is this: Why would you request that a team of editors clean up the article and then, at the same time, nominate that article for deletion?? The same reasoning keeps being repeated but it seems that the answers aren't being followed. The sources provided are reliable and can be sourced to greatly improve this article. All that aside, however, again, why would you ask for help editing this article and then propose merging, moving and deleting? Kobuu (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - You aren't the only group sought out. TAFI was as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject has received significant coverage from at least two reliable sources, all be it highly critical of the subject (Salon, Politico), among a plethora of other reliable sources (easily found by searching for the subject of this article up for AFD). On top of that, in regards to this draft guideline, WP:PUBLISHER (lets call it an essay for our purposes), the subject's publications been highly cited in books (example), and journals (including scholarly ones). Therefore, based on what I can find, the subject appears to be notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- I move for a speedy keep under Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Applicability 2A, 2C, and 2D. This is just another chapter in a story that dates back to March. This is Frivolous, vexatious, simply an outright abuse of process. Atsme is simply using this to end an editing dispute. This is also the second deletion discussion. The prior one took place on Steven Emerson's talk page here's the diff and and here it is archived. The user also canvassed 3 other editors to that conversation. Only one came and only to mention that she did canvass. The user currently has a new merge proposal on Talk:Steven_Emerson. The user is trying to remove any link to the article on IPT from Steven Emerson article as seen here. This has been on ANI 3 times. It's been been raised elsewhere. This is all about a Template on page about Islamophobia. An RFC in March seen here and archived here resulted in a consensus that this template was not a npov violation. After march 26 she didn't make further response edits there until June 22. On June 29 she removed that template again though it's strangely absent from her editing summary. She removed it again some time after that. If this page is deleted and recreated under a different name it will lose it's editing history on the article page and the talk page. The consensus that the template is not an NPOV violation goes with it. There by removing Atsme's need to get consensus to remove the template. There really so much more to say but I'm actually tired of repeating myself and this should enough for a speedy keep.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please, before another vote is cast, try to understand the following: IPT is Steven Emerson - it was not a legal "organization" - it is a dba for Emerson, and without him, it has no notability. The only legal "organization" was formed in 2006 named The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION. It is the ONLY nonprofit organization that Emerson has any connection to, and he is the Executive Director, but there are other people involved in the Foundation, not just Emerson as with IPT which is nothing more than a dba for Steven Emerson. IPT inherited notability from Steven Emerson - without him, there is no notability. All the sources that are being cited above refer to Steven Emerson dba IPT, and NOT the legal foundation the article is supposed to be covering. I am working on establishing notability for the FOUNDATION, otherwise it is Emerson dba IPT. By keeping the article as is, you are giving Steven Emerson two articles on Wikipedia. You are not seeing the true picture here. Atsme☯^Consult 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it's not a legal organization. The American Bar Association is a legal organization. Even if anyone was to consider your logic there's a flaw in it overall. WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. That fact that it's 1995 founding is mentioned does nothing for your deletion position.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's premises are incorrect. Policy is to fix, rather than delete, articles that are imperfect. See WP:PRESERVE. Nor is the argument persuasive that sources have to use the word "Foundation", or that they have to post-date the official incorporation date of the current formal entity, to be relevant to the topic. The nominator has received advice from multiple editors at WP:VPM (and now here in this AfD), but seems unwilling to accept it. There is no policy violation here, and certainly nothing that can't be addressed through normal editing processes. Rather than further blizzards of words, the nominator should take a little time to review Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the nominator's premises are absolutely correct. To begin, we don't need two articles on Steven Emerson, so the delete request for IPT is valid. Emerson is IPT. Editors here are clearly having difficulty understanding policy, and what inherited notability means. IPT inherited Emerson's notability, and cannot stand on its own. Without Emerson, what do you have? Simple answer: all that remains is the legally formed charity - The IPT FOUNDATION which was organized in 2006 with Steven Emerson acting as Executive Director. There are no reliable secondary sources that meet the criteria of the FOUNDATION's notability because the media isn't writing about it. What you'll find are books criticizing Emerson, dba IPT, which has nothing to do with the Foundation. Again - inherited notability. Where are the secondary sources that provide neutral information about the Foundation less Steven Emerson? You cannot fix the existing article because (1) it is named incorrectly, (2) it is full of violations, and (3) it has inherited notability - all are policy violations. I can't for the life of me figure out why editors are having such a difficult time understanding the problem. PLEASE, read the policy Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) - NO INHERENT NOTABILITY - NO INHERITED NOTABILITY. It can't be any more obvious. Atsme☯^Consult 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Tamlar Tesser, Ray Locker, would be disapointed to find out this. Steve Emerson and a foundation is all there is. No Pete Hoekstra and no Lorenzo Vidino. And I don't think that Fox, Forbes, or The NY times Got the memo. There are numerous sources that make the case for notability. But there isn't much for your case. And your actions betray your cause. You open this to delete, on Steven Emerson talk you opened your second merge proposal, and at the same time you are trying to edit the Steven Emerson Article to scrub it of Investigative project on Terrorism. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your first link absolutely validates my entire point - Tamar Tesler, a senior analyst with the Investigative Project, a conservative group that studies terrorist organizations.... Thank you again!! To begin the article was written in 2005 and identifies The Investigative Project, NOT the Investigative Project on Terrorism, or The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. By combining them, you are violating WP:SYNTH. The Investigative Project was Steven Emerson's think tank, so what makes you think it has the notability for its own article? Teslar's two or three sentence opinion in a NY Times article is trivial, and does nothing to establish notability. Your second link is a FOX News report that states: But Ray Locker, managing director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, told MyFoxNY.com that even in 1999, news outlets reported on possible ties between HLF and terror organizations. So tell me, how does an incident from 1999 relate to the Foundation today, and how does that establish notability for the Foundation? In 1999, Steven Emerson was an independent expert on Terrorism with "think tank" and a production company that produced documentaries. It has nothing to do with the Foundation's work from 2006 forward. You are grasping at straws, and I can assure you, every source you try to include will end up with the same or similar critique except for a mere handful. Policy clearly states: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Not one source cited in the arguments to KEEP this article can be considered reliable sources to establish notability as I just demonstrated with the links you provided. The majority if not all will refer back to Emerson. Don't you get it?? However, the FOUNDATION is A SEPARATE ENTITY, it was "born" in 2006. Anything prior to that time, or directly related to Emerson prior to his becoming Executive Director of the Foundation belongs in his bio. The Foundation and IPT are NOT one in the same. The Investigative Project is Steven Emerson, and so is The Investigative Project on Terrorism as I tried to explain before your reverts in Steven Emerson. The Foundation is the only true separate entity, and it should have its own accurately named article provided it meets the criteria for NOTABILITY. Everything else needs to be merged into Steven Emerson because it's just not notable enough to be stand alone. Atsme☯^Consult 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The investigative project is another known name for IPT.This is from IPT's website with an indication that it is from them and this is the original from WSJ. They list the name as The investigative project. IPT claim themselves to be founded in 1995 [16]. This source meets reliability guidelines under wp:sps. In addition a number of other sources say the same thing. IPTF as you differentiate it is tied directly to IPT. IPTF funds IPT work. There is no legitimate differentiation between the 2. This is from 2005 before your 2006 non-profit incorporation. It indicated that Steven Emerson was the Executive director of the Investigative Project. Again another known name for the investigative project on Terrorism. While you try to differentiate the two you fail to do so. As far as on the Steven Emerson page, You are trying to remove any content that refers to IPT while on talk page you are trying to have it merged. Here you trying to have it deleted. Your removal of the content while trying to achieve a consensus on the content in multiple locations is an all out bad call on your part. But I'm done here unless anything comes up.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And therein the problem lies. You don't get it. A legally recognized charity, aka Foundation, is a SEPARATE ENTITY. You really need to read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Your comments above prove you don't know what you're talking about. Hopefully there will be some input from editors who actually do understand the differences, and WP policy requirements for notability. I have been unable to help you understand what it means to be a separate entity. Atsme☯^Consult 21:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - before you post an opinion or your comment, please read the Funding Section at Investigative Project on Terrorism. You should see immediately why the article has a serious COI, and needs to be deleted. IPT is not The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. It is IPT, which is the dba of Steven Emerson, it is not a nonprofit charity because the funding is provided to IPT by the charity. The COI then begs the question, who the heck is IPT? Short answer - Steven Emerson, and his website. It's a mess. Atsme☯^Consult 06:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem Khezri

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

Article lacks reliable sources,Does not meet the relevant notability guideline (Biography) , Against the Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and against the Wikipedia's policy on Conflict of interest Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fails WP:BIO. Contains no reliable sources, only Facebook, a blog with poetry and various other Wiki pages (also with Facebook etc. as sources). Tassedethe (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note the article Diyako Mad that is a duplicate of this one . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without any notability or reliable sources. -- ARASH PT talk 00:11, 29 September 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. Michig (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Shepherd

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

no indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film appears to be based on the 1951 book Little Shepherd by Anobel Armour. Google does not show whether or not the book is notable, but if its notability can be established, I would be okay with mentioning this film in an article re-tailored to be about the book. If nothing can be found, I am fine with deleting the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Having just spent some time with the article fixing it per per MOS:FILM, I agree... this short film fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:25, 22 September 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) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaarada Panjara

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

Article was WP:PRODded with concerns about notability and lack of sources. Author removed the prod tag with a statement asserting that IMDB is sufficient (it isn't) and made no improvements thereafter to address the concerns. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as usual, it is very difficult to get online sources proving the existence of pre-2000 regional indian films. Major actors acted in this film. I have found couple of articles mentioning the film: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/156113/content/218765/archives.php, http://www.sify.com/movies/boxoffice.php?id=14941886&cid=13319495. Regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dwaipayanc. Plus http://books.google.com/books?id=xPHZAAAAMAAJ p. 681, http://books.google.com/books?id=wgEbAQAAIAAJ p. 104 and http://books.google.com/books?id=SLkABAAAQBAJ p. 186 confirms the notability. Here is the movie in full: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ_HOVQXZrA --Soman (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

and WP:INDAFD: Bangaarada Panjara

Keep Suitable sourcable stub article. There is no requirement that it "must" be improved or be deleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:55, 22 September 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 - spamvertorial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissertation proposal format

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

This article reads as a guide to writing a dissertation (WP:NOTGUIDE), is completely unsourced, and is likely WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tag {{GOCEreviewed|user=Dthomsen8|date=22 September 2014|issues=Awaiting deletion results before copyediting}} added on talk page.-- Dthomsen8 15:20, 22 September 2014‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) - it's an ad for a dissertation writing service, even includes a link to their website. Lemnaminor (talk) 09:32, 24 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finnair flight AY 915

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

Not newspaper, GNG, Sources not verifiable, no outcome, no damage, no casualties, Possible hoax due to lack of verifiable souces, the list goes on.... Petebutt (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The incident can be notable but what did or did not happen isn't verifiable. It is the claims of two people over 25+ years later in a tabloid newspaper. There is no other source to back it up, so delete....William 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~On Hold~~ The article is very recent, it is only normal that there is room for improvement, especially as regards sources. I regret that it was nominated for deletion so soon, seeing the effort that was put into it. My vote would be to wait for at least a couple of weeks before taking any action; meanwhile checking for the incident to appear on the well-known aviation incident sites. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Need I say more? I hope lessons will be learned by some early delete voters. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait per Jan olieslagers. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Apanuggpak and Finnusertop. The article has been expanded and appears to meet GNG. That the majority of sources are in Finnish does not make them unreliable or unverifiable. Google Translate can do a reasonable job on most major languages nowadays, at least allowing the gist of a source to be gleaned. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was not notable enough to report in 1987 so 2014 speculation about the supposed event does not make it notable now. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Relying on a single, unverifiable source, it sounds quite apocryphal. Extraordinary claims require more than this.~~ Since the article has now been expanded and includes many reliable refs it meets WP:GNG and should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's really nothing here. This is a single newspaper credulously reporting the statement of two co-pilots, 25 years after the purported incident, in the absence of any official record of the incident. The flight captain made no report at the time; conveniently, this "revelation" comes out after he has passed away and the 1987 logbooks have wandered off into whatever part of history all lost documents go. Even taking the article claims at face value (which I am loathe to, to say the least), this event had no actual impact: no effect on the plane, no effect on the flight at all, no political impact. In the unlikely event that this becomes a wider political topic later, we can revisit it then. Now, however, this simply does not meet either the subject matter inclusion guidelines for airliner incidents nor the notability guidelines in general. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The alleged incident wouldn't necessarily have to be true to be notable; it could also become a notable unverified claim if it were to get traction and coverage in a variety of reliable sources. So far, however, all I could find was a Yle report summarizing the claims from the initial Helsingin Sanomat article. [17] These are both reliable sources but by themselves this isn't enough. We'd want to see, at least, some independent reporting on the co-pilots' allegations. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 25 years on and still no evidence of notability... –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if I may say so as the author of this article.

Notability: Practically every newspaper and every electronic media has covered this matter on the same day it was published by Helsingin Sanomat. The coverage continued for some more days. Finnish politicians (former cabinet members) are outraged, former head of the Finnish Security Intelligence Service has also expressed having been dismayed by the news.

The article now has 19 different media citations of this news in Finland (from a dozen different media, most of them known to even en-Wiki), all of which can be found on-line. I would call that notability. Use Google translate in case you have doubts.

As stated in an additional paragraph in introduction, this incident is part of a string of very significant incidents:

Reliability: Not a single voice in Finland has been heard stating that the claims of the pilots would be false or invented. Even if reported back in 1987, there still would have been the word of the pilots against anyone who doubted the truth of their report.

Defense experts in Finland, our top missile expert from the National Defence University of Finland (Professor Stefan Forss) as well as the former second-in-command (Colonel Ahti Lappi) of the anti-aircraft branch of the Finnish military have commented on the matter, expressing do doubts as to the truth of the alleged incident.

Thus, the article now has independent assessment of the pilot’s story.

Not reported: If reported and leaked to the press, the leakers would have faced, according to the penal code of Finland at the time, a maximum jail sentence of two years for harming the relations of Finland and a foreign country, for all practical purposes, the Soviet Union. This clause was added to the legislation of Finland in 1948. — Finnish Wikipedia on Finlandization:

“Itsesensuurilla oli myös juridinen perusteensa: vuonna 1948 rikoslakiin lisättiin kappale, jonka mukaan Suomen ja vieraan valtion, käytännössä lähinnä Neuvostoliiton, suhteita vahingoittavasta materiaalista voitiin tuomita enimmillään kahdeksi vuodeksi vankeuteen. Rikokseksi määriteltiin vieraan valtion julkinen ja tahallinen halventaminen "painotuotteella, kirjoituksella, kuvallisella esityksellä tahi muulla ilmaisuvälineellä". Virallinen syyttäjä sai nostaa syytteen kyseisessä lainkohdassa määritellystä rikoksesta vain tasavallan presidentin määräyksestä ja ensimmäisenä oikeusasteena tällaisten tapausten käsittelyssä oli hovioikeus. — Kemppinen, Kullervo: Lakitiedon Pikkujättiläinen, s. 653. Porvoo: WSOY, 1985.

— ‘Selfcensorship also had a legal basis: in 1948 a paragraph was added to the Finnish penal code, according to which producing materials that harm the relations of Finland and a foreign country, in practice mainly the Soviet Union, a person could be sentenced to jail for a maximum of two years. The public and deliberate defaming of a foreign country would be punishable if it had been done by “printed matters, a writing, a picture or any other means of expression.” A public prosecutor was allowed to press charges only on the orders of the president of the country, and the first instance for the trial would have been the court of appeals.’ — Kemppinen, Kullervo: Lakitiedon Pikkujättiläinen (‘The Little Giant of Legal Knowledge’), p. 653. Porvoo: WSOY, 1985.

— In 1987 this was still a very real threat in Finland.

Tabloid newspaper: This simply is not true, in the negative sense of this expression (i.e. yellow press). Helsingin Sanomat is the biggest newspaper in all of Scandinavia, and the most authoritative print media in Finland. It is true that its physical appearance today is a tabloid format (due to the necessity of have the same format in print and on-line), but until a couple of years ago it was printed in broadsheet format. It is generally not bought at newsstands, but it is ordered and delivered to homes all across the country. It is definitely not a scandal-seeking media.

Please read the updated version of the article, and reconsider (those who are in favour of deletion.) Apanuggpak (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can confirm the claims made by Apanuggpak in the comment above, particularly in relation to the reliable and verifiable nature of the Finnish language sources. Recognizing that there is a reason why there has not been any sources since 1987 until very recently, it's WP:NOTNEWS either since the coverage has been in-depth and varied. Furthermore, it's not our job to assess if the pilots are telling the truth - this assessment has already been done by the sources and given their reliability and consistency there is no reason to doubt them. As for the tricky question of (political) impact (WP:EFFECT) raised by Squeamish Ossifrage, this is an important question and it might be too early to say. However, the article does meet WP:GNG and thus conforms with WP:EVENT: "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect". There is historical significance as the authorities' response was characterized by the atmosphere of Finlandization, and this aspect is covered in the article. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable with no verifiable sources--Petebutt (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Petebutt: - sources are verifiable, whether or not you understand Finnish. Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify what makes the sources unverifiable? For instance, them being in Finnish does not make them unverifiable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS) or unreliable. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Apanuggpak on all claims. Is the consensus here really that the biggest newspaper in Finland is yellow press, and that Finnish Government officials are unreliable? I have to point out that aviation incidents can sometimes be notable even without deaths or other permanent damage. Especially those from the Cold War era. I also agree with Arxiloxos. Ceosad (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: Hell, it was on all the radio news shows here in Canada, and the Toronto Star. Enough, snow this one already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Veritable sources, mostly in Finnish, understood by at least 5 milj. people. --Abc10 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I respect the early request for deletion, as vigilance is required to keep WP clear of dross, but it may have been a bit premature given the sources now in the article. It is now an obvious WP:SNOWBALL, and should be speedily kept. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure a speedy close is appropriate to an article with lots of issues, filling most of the article with mentions in the Finnish press still doesnt make it notable, with much speculation and assumption made years later it is clearly tabloid fodder but wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 'But [GNG] guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage. Having sources that under all circumstances meet this guideline means that it is notable, and therefore, worthy of an article.' See this:WP:FARAWAY. Ceosad (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read Faraway, that took me to Notability re geographic scope and I ended up WP:Diverse which says "...sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted" Is the Finnish language reporting diverse? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I know, the most important sources are reasonably independent. A few of the sources could, and should, be removed and consolidated because they are pretty much identical, and not independent from the Helsingin Sanomat and STT. (Both are owned by the Sanoma News. STT sells news to many smaller newspapers, who usually don't even edit them.) See references 28. to 34., just for a perfectly typical example of Finnish "copy-and-paste" journalism. They are almost identical clones. Vast majority of the news in Finland can be traced back to the STT. I think that (atleast) Nelonen Media, Yle and Uusi Suomi are most(ly) independent from the Helsingin Sanomat in this case. Ceosad (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, a flurry of articles published at roughly the same time in many or most papers is sometimes the result of legitimate journalism across the board, but is frequently simply the propagation of stories provided by one of the major wire services (especially the Associated Press). I have less than zero familiarity with Finnish media, but I largely assume at least some of this reporting is not independent. There was an offhand mention of coverage of this topic in the Toronto Star; I couldn't find that after a cursory search, but if this was the subject of examination outside of Finland, that would go some ways to overcoming my WP:EVENT-based objections. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 25 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Albuquerque Sol FC season

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

A season article for an amateur soccer/football club seems overdone The Banner talk 12:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Consensus usually holds that a club must be playing in a fully-professional league to have an individual season article, which is not the case here. Furthermore fails WP:GNG. 15:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep - This is a season article for a team competing in a league whose 63-teams widely cover the United States and Canada. This particular club's paid home attendance averaged over 900 in 2014 league play. Each match listed in the this article's league schedule table includes a reference to the official game report either on the United Soccer League's official site or elsewhere. References to major-market newspapers give specifics of the Sol's inaugural season. In general support of Premier Development League clubs meeting the notability standard for inclusion of season articles, note that 16 PDL clubs currently earn a berth in the annual 68-team Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. If only for the sake of comparing the season performance of MLS, NASL, and USL Pro clubs against semi-pro PDL competition (where not infrequently the PDL side will advance) PDL season pages are a useful addition to Wikipedia. Gatomasgordo (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and playing in a minor league = not fully profesional. Kante4 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-referenced with sources, demonstrating the topic meets WP:GNG. If only similar articles for the umpteenth level of English football were as well referenced! Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The USL PDL league includes fully pro teams as well as teams that are a mixture of amateur and pro players. Also, as Nfitz points out, many English football teams at the amateur level have season pages (For example: 2012–13_Aldershot_Town_F.C._season). USL PDL teams frequently play sanctioned matches against higher level pro teams in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, while teams at a lower level on the U.S. soccer pyramid do not. Sativasativa (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. It is pity that you discredit your own comments by stating that the professional club Aldershot Town F.C. is an amateur club. The Banner talk 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm, mr. Sativa. I do not have the idea that your are a genuine editor, so I inform you of this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gatomasgordo. The Banner talk 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- [[File:|25px|link=]] doh! Nfitz (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the case that I know user SativaSativa outside of Wikipedia, and have encouraged him to become a Wiki contributor. I did also tell him today that the 2014 Albuquerque Sol article I created has been nominated for deletion. I did not, however, supply him with arguments or actively recruit his participation in this deletion discussion. He and I have both acted in good faith. Gatomasgordo (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no need for the rudeness, Mr. Banner. Clearly I am not as well versed on the topic as you are, but I was simply trying to make a case that a team on a similar pyramid level in the English system has season pages. Aldershot just came up first in my search because they are the first alphabetically. I'm sure if I dug around enough I could find more season pages for other teams on that level that are not fully professional. Obviously I don't edit the Wikipedia much, but that doesn't make my opinion invalid. I don't see any reason why this season page should be deleted. Sativasativa (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - A sockpuppet investigation is not rude, although it is a harsh method. But let the technical whizz-kids do their research and based on their result we can tell who was rude. The Banner talk 21:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So I've been doing some reading, trying to get up to speed with the topic, and I finally found this article from the Football WikiProject: WP:FOOTYN which has notability criteria for football players, clubs, and leagues, but not for season pages. Does the same notability criterion apply for season pages as applies to the clubs themselves? If not, I think it should actually be spelled out on that page to avoid confusion like this in the future. Sativasativa (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NSEASONS. It says "articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." The league is not a fully professional league. Kingjeff (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — looks like it does indeed fail WP:NSEASONS as the league the team resides in, USL Premier Development League, is apparently an amateur-level league, not a professional one. --slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of technology companies in Quebec City

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

Rather random list of companies, almost half of them links to disambiguation pages (5 out of 12) and several articles make no mention of Quebec at all. In this form useless and ready for removal. The Banner talk 12:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I recommend someone start a proper list from the contents of Category:Companies based in Quebec and its subcategories before wasting time on such a narrow subset, and there is next to no valid content in this list as the nom describes. Only one article even mentions Quebec City, one more mentions Quebec generally, and the remainder are companies based elsewhere or undisambiguated links. There was even an entry for a Canadian defense agency (which I removed), not a company at all. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither "technology" nor "in Quebec City" are tightly enough defined to make this a worthwhile list. --Michig (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally speaking, these sorts of articles are organized on larger-than-city geographical areas (I know there are vaguely parallel articles by state for the US, for example). Normally, the solution would be to upmerge. But, as noted, "technology company" is simply far too broad and poorly defined to make any such list of use. While this is not a bundled nomination, the closing admin may wish to apply a similar fate to List of technology companies in Montreal, List of technology companies in Ottawa, and List of technology companies in Vancouver. As confirmation that these aren't a distinct topic, these four "List of technology companies in [Canadian city]" are the only four lists of technology companies in articlespace. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:36, 22 September 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. Michig (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian McIver

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

To be honest, this has all the trappings of being a speedy deletion candidate, but the claims of creating a (non-notable) collective and exhibiting internationally has made me opt for AfD. Unfortunately I can't see a great deal online, other than brief mentions as part of group exhibitions. Sionk (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything by way of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All the coverage I could find of the subject was written by the subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see signficant coverage in third party reliable sources. Fails GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Kamvari

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

The subject of this article has requested deletion via OTRS (ticket #2014091110017035, for those with OTRS permissions). With no independent sources, I'm inclined to agree that the page shoudl be deleted. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I respect his right to ask for deletion but it would appear he is notable. The sources may not be inline but there would seem to be coverage in fairly well-respected international architecture publications. If he really is responsible for the buildings detailed in the article (some of which are notable in their own right) then I'm inclined to think he'd be considered a notable architect by our standards. But I can't read the ticket - is there a request for clean up or deletion or is it just a straight request for deletion? I'd be happy to work on the article if the subject is simply upset at having a messy biography. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the details, it's specifically a request for deletion rather than cleanup. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On specific grounds (inaccuracy, privacy, self-deprecation)? Without a reason for deletion, there wouldn't seem to be grounds for deleting the article of a notable architect. As has been tested in the past, there's no opt-out clause. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's just this minute pointed out that the content appears to be copied from his LinkedIn profile and CV. However, after discussion it seems he's not averse to having a well-written and policy compliant article; I think now that his concern was more the embarassment of having such a poorly written article associated with him. If you would like to clean it up, with suitable sources etc., then please do go for it. Based on his last email, I'm going to Withdraw this nomination. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: Beginning of the End

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

Is it an original work? If no, it is a copyright violations. If yes, then it is in violation of WP:SYNTH Jayakumar RG (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:V and thus WP:NF. Author appears to be its purported director, and this may simply be WP:MADEUP, but lacking information I am unwilling to call it synth or copyvio. Being unsourcable, this definitely lacks notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can't find even a whisper out there about this film- this Wikipedia article is the only place that this is mentioned. I understand that it's extremely hard for fan films to receive coverage, but we require coverage in reliable sources before we can have an article. This just isn't notable at this point in time and we can't have articles for films that someone came up with WP:ONEDAY as an idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 26 September 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 Ultimate Fighter: Latin America. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Vera

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Does not meet WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Latin America Right now he's a non-notable MMA fighter with nothing to show he should have his own article.Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He obviously fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Of course he may become notable, but right now a redirect seems like the most reasonable course of action. Papaursa (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trilok Kumar Jain

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

vanity bio. fails WP:PROF. bio of a university prof, all primary or self published sources, but few independent sources to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio. Ohc ^¡digame! 04:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability. Tried Googling, but nothing came up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on self-published sources, where the subject need to be verified with reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:46, 22 September 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) 16:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Body Liners

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

Not sure this is notable. Appreciate others thoughts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just an ad for a non-notable product. Sources are an opinion piece by the company's CEO pushing the product in the Washington Post and a PR piece. A search does not turn up more. Lemnaminor (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sufficient substantive coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:54, 30 September 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. Deor (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Agarwal

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

fails WP:PROF. bio of a university prof, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio. Ohc ^¡digame! 02:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (67 is an extremely high h-index for mathematics, generally a low-citation field, and he has many individual very highly cited papers) and #C8 (editor in chief of four journals, all from a respected publisher). See also [18]. Nominator should be advised of WP:BEFORE: you're allowed to look outside Wikipedia to ascertain notabilty, but the journal editorships at least were already there in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does appear to be a pretty distinguished academic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PROF C1 is definitive, but if it weren't, the number of reviews of his books in SIAM Review, American Mathematical Monthly (those are shorter reviews) and American Scientist would reach well exceed WP:AUTHOR. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 30 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mugshots

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

Apparently non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. References inadequate, probable COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Deleted in 2006 AfD, still doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:11, 13 September 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 02:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability. Tried Googling, but hardly anything came up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added new references. --Coatlx (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)— Coatlx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Michig (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrice Thompson

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

No evidence that this individual meets WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Yankees10 03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was principally a backup wide receiver at Arizona State (starting only 6 of 46 games), and he had only 16 catches and 1 touchdown in 46 games played. No evidence has been cited or found to indicate that his college football career would satisfy either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. While his stabbing death at the Martini Ranch bar did garner some local news coverage, I don't think that coverage is sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. If additional sources are uncovered focusing in a significant way on Thompson and his life, as opposed to simply his death as a victim of a random criminal act, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football player who satisfies the specific notability guidelines of neither WP:NCOLLATH nor WP:GRIDIRON, with insufficient coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The coverage surrounding his unfortunate death is excluded per the one-event rule of WP:BIO1E. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:07, 27 September 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Qualifiers broadcasting rights

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

This is a redirect to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying broadcasting rights and its original title, moved by Nickst to a most correct and standard title. The problem is that European Qualifiers broadcasting rights is IMHO not valid (and wrong) as redirect to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying. The "European Qualifiers" could be the teams of any other sport (or other, as the EuroSong) in any year. Just for example: limited to football, this may be the title for other UEFA Euro qualifyings (as 2020), to UEFA Champions League, Europa League, to the UEFA teams engaged in FIFA World Cup qualifying etc. So, is very hard to imagine it also as a disambiguation page. I would tag it for speedy deletion per WP:R3, but I preferred a prior request. Thanks. Dэя-Бøяg 21:53, 8 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:33, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:53, 22 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang A.M. – A New World of Sound

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:50, 22 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gwar Lite

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NSONGS, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:49, 22 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stripper Christmas Summer Weekend

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NSONGS, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:49, 22 September 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vida (Fuego album)

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

Future album. The article has no citations. There is no discussion in the music press that I could find, though the words "fuego" and "vida" are very common, so there might be some press somewhere. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fuego (singer) --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:44, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:49, 22 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves Going Single

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:47, 22 September 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. Michig (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dominic Kinsella

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

I'm tentative on this but offer it up for general consideration: There's no notability criterion for rowers, and perhaps there should be. This seems to be a good test case as the subject's only claim to notability is that he rowed in the 1984 Boat Race (i.e. Oxford v. Cambridge on the Thames). Some other members of the crews that day have articles but usually they went on to Olympic participation (or, in two cases, became Goldman Sachs partners). Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~: Here are some reasons I think the entry should be kept:

- approximately 7 million people watch the boat race in the UK each year. It is further broadcast to approximately 120 countries where it is watched by an additional c.200 million viewers. The Boat Race would not be very interesting without the crew members all of whom contribute to the strength of the boat and are equally important to the success of the event

- surely more information is better than less given that the crew members are already listed on wikipedia (List of Cambridge University Boat Race crews), unless wikipedia needs to cap the amount of information it can hold?

- most crew members go on to achieve further notable things in life. I do not know if Kinsella has done so but, if he has, a wikipedia entry will prompt additional information to be added to the entry

MJT21 (talk) 09:37, 9 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, the article reads that he participated in one boat race and went to school. Nothing else. Maybe there is more out there about this person. However, I note that the article creator has also been creating a number of recent bios of prior alumni from this school. Given demonstrated capability of producing more information for these short biographies, I don't think it is the case in this instance. Then again, I am often wrong on these AfD discussions recently, after a seven year WP hiatus. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apologies if this is not the case but, on an initial search. it would appear that User:Fiachra10003 does not exist? MJT21 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted Keep, so to avoid confusion I have struck out your previous Keep. I don't know where you are searching, but the links in the signature of the nomination pointed to User:Fiachra10003 and to User talk:Fiachra10003; the user's contributions are at Special:Contributions/Fiachra10003, linked from the page history, and at the foot of the contributions page are the usual links to details of the account. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious me, I've seen some low, low tactics used in Articles for Deletion discussions, but I've never before seen someone suggest that a nominator doesn't exist! Wikipedio, ergo sum ;) Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it may indeed be true that millions watch the boat race, but that's not a sufficient argument to keep this page. It's a Knockout was watched by millions, but we don't allow pages for each of the contestants. The boat race itself is worthy of a page, but the individual participants, many of whom never reach international level, are not. Delete. —Bristolbottom ^talk 18:15, 23 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to close. Even without my contribution, three editors provided policy-based reasons for deletion and one (the creator) opined for deletion on entirely non-policy grounds. Not sure how much more consensus is needed but I'm happy to oblige - the subject doesn't inherit notability for his single appearance at a notable event, doesn't pass any of our Special Notability Guidelines for sportspeople and obviously doesn't pass WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and nothing to show any notable accomplishments as an athlete.Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 25 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let There Be Gwar

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

I found a few mentions of the documentary of the same name, but only trivial mentions or inclusions in discographies for this album. Fails notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:45, 22 September 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. w/o prejudice to the addition of a redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: All In j⚛e decker ^talk 07:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loisa Andalio

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

Not notable enough. Was only a contestant of the show she joined. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evict, or alternatively, redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: All In - No notability yet outside of PBB. If she starts a showbiz career and it takes off, she could probably have a separate article, but right now, it's TOO SOON. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:21, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Narutolovehinata5.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 22 September 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Food

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

No evidenc of meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Meets WP:NF's other attributes section as it is still screening at festivals more than five years after initial release, IE: 1998 [19][20], 2006 [21], 2008 [22], and as recently as 2013 [23][24] and has received some decent reviews: [25] and [26][27]. Yes, this will never get the coverage of some big-budget, major studio blockbuster, but for what it is, it is just notable enough for Wikipedia. Needs use of available sources, but addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 8 September 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 01:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's spot on analysis - Needs some TLC. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:04, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's Excellent analysis and passes WP:NF#Other evidence of notability .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw vomination I'm convinced by the excellent comments above. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 23 September 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diskreet

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

unref article on living people. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There are quite a few reviews of their releases online, but not all of these are from reliable sources. There's a very reliable album review from AllMusic and an EP review from Blabbermouth.net though, and if you couple these with the fact that their releases have been on blue-linked labels (Siege of Amida Records and Candlelight Records) then I think these guys just about scrape the bar set out at WP:BAND. More coverage in reliable sources would help their cause significantly, however. — sparklism ^hey! 09:56, 8 September 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 01:02, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:42, 22 September 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Inferno (musical)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage to establish notability. Deleted in 2007 AfD, swiftly recreated. May be worth salting. Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 September 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 01:02, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the coverage of the failed UK tour [28], frequent low-cost and amateur productions get brief coverage in assorted publications in a variety of locations around the world, attesting to its persistent low-level notability. Among the HighBeam and Google hits are Irish Times [29], Birmingham Post [30], Daily Record (Scotland) [31], Isle of Man Newspapers [32], The Patriot-News (Harrisburg, PA) [33], Deseret News (very brief) [34], Hamburger Abendblatt [35]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sundar Das

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

Certainly sounds notable, but I couldn't verify it with reliable sources. It has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 7 September 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 01:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of importance and fails WP:ANYBIO. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:54, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Cutest Penguin and fails WP:N and WP:V failed to find WP:RS sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:58, 29 September 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NewMediaRockstars

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

non notable; trivial coverage only DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I came across NewMediaRockstars, it took me about a month to decide whether I thought it was notable enough to start a stub. One of the problems we face with New media is that it is emerging rapidly right now and it may be that we are lagging behind in our ability to detect notability. Of course, the counter argument is that WP:Too soon applies in these cases, which is a reasonable argument. However, in the case of NewMediaRockstars, I think the case can be made that it has passed through the threshold of notability. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers.2C magazines and journals, at least one of five criteria must be satisfied. Criteria #3 and #5 appear to be satisfied by this online magazine.

3. "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area". Below are two examples where it is cited by reliable sources.

O'Leary, Amy (12 April 2013). "The Woman With 1 Billion Clicks, Jenna Marbles". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2014.
Mangalindan, JP (14 December 2012). "Today in Tech: The Mail app every iPhone user should use". Fortune (magazine). Retrieved 8 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

5. "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets"

New media is a non-trivial niche market. WP:GOOGLEHITS is one measure of whether this magazine is trivial or not in the "New media" niche. I got 75,700 hits and there are 8,306 Facebook likes last I checked. So, people in the New media niche market are paying attention to it.

I believe that #3 and #5 are satisfied and justify Keep, but if the community judges WP:Too soon, then I request the article be userfied. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:51, 9 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:08, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors interested in this deletion discussion may also be interested in the AfD on Benny Luo, the founder of NewMediaRockstars. (Disclosure: I am the nominator in that discussion.) —Swpb^talk 12:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Macintosh

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

Non-notable sports journalist. About 1/10th of the article is an attempt at comedy. Possibly not even a real person. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, Mr. Macintosh does exist. [36][37] Altamel (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been around since 2011; no references. Especially galling is the "they have sold literally tens of copies" - nice joke, but rather sums up the non-notability of this soul, along with the sad fact that you can buy the book on Amazon for $.78. LaMona (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:19, 30 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rihanna concert tours

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a WP:CFORK that could easily be summarized on Rihanna's main page and tour pages. Doesn't warrant a separate article- should be either deleted or redirected to Rihanna Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of sourced content to justify a WP:SPLIT, and seems to be a well-sourced and written summary of her tour history, both in prose and in annotated tables (though it needs updating; still says four tours, but the Diamonds Tour was apparently the fifth). Certainly a recording artist's promotional tours are rather important part of covering the subject. The nom says this "could" be summarized at Rihanna, but it's not at present (there's just a bare list), which means at best this would be merged there, not deleted, but this is far too much content to dump back into the parent article. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by summarizing it in the Rihanna article was just mentioning them by prose within her "life and career" section and later on listing them by name under "tours". Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:19, 10 September 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 01:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I personally believe concert tours of celebs & whatnot are notable and encyclopedic, IMHO the Rihanna article is big enough let alone shoving this article with it, Anyway passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:01, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ (See below) Either keep or merge would be fine. The main article goes on and on about her, which seems to be what interested people want and they are the only ones who will be looking at it. This short article at the end, replacing a section that is there now, will not make much difference there. On the other hand, it as a stand-alone article seems to fit in with WP standards too. BayShrimp (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This will not happen (I expect), but what celebrity articles should do is leave the reader saying: "That was interesting. I would like to know more about her." Then they go to her own website and to her performances on Youtube, etc. BayShrimp (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Working on this type of article is much better for rabid, crazed "fans" than actually stalking her in real life. Let them be. If this could save one person's life it would be worth it. So Keep, keep, keep. BayShrimp (talk) 21:50, 22 September 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Camus

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

Actor with just one role. And from the looks of the film he really did not star in it. Probably should be linked to that films page. Wgolf (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:19, 7 September 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 01:25, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:33, 22 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labor and material productivity

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

It is a little difficult to understand exactly what this article is about, but it appears to consist entirely of original research - calculations based on the sources, rather than calculations published in sources. ("These norms are calculated and referred from below mentioned reliable sources.") It has been tagged for various issues since 2010 and 2011. I just removed a paragraph that had been stating since 2009 that "Further details [...] are being calculated and will be posted here very soon." bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:20, 7 September 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 01:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per the fact that the source of original research hasn't been seen on Wikipedia since 2009. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:20, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree this is a pretty shoddy article, I disagree with the notion that straightforward calculations are "original research." Doing arithmetic is not much different from paraphrasing text, inasmuch as both involve drawing immediate non-controversial conclusions from the sources. TL/DR: WP:CALC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy? While these may be "straightforward calculations" they are unsourced. If you paraphrase text, you cite the original text. There are some "references" here but there is no link between the references and the data. I don't know this topic, so I am willing to believe that this is interesting work that has been done. But it is original research. Note that throughout the life of this article, starting with its inception in October, 2010, it has be tagged as "unencyclopedic" "no footnotes/refimprove" "deadend." As data it may be ok, but it is not an encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: The references appear to contain the relevant information. Some of the paper sources are now online, like this one: [38]. From this source it's apparent that this is not original research. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite apparent. It is 650-page pdf file and as there are no foot notes in the article I have no idea what is referenced by that particular document. Could you give us a page number in the pdf? --bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy1339 I don't think that anyone is questioning that the information comes from somewhere. All information comes from somewhere. What is being questioned is if this article cites existing information, or is new information that did not previously exist elsewhere. The statement about "simple calculations" indicated to me that the article's figures are not quotes but are the results of calculations done on other material. What isn't clear, therefore, is the relationship between these figures and the cited references. To give an example, look at United_States_elections,_2006. There are large tables there, and maps. Although the tables themselves may not be copied exactly from the source (they have been re-formatted for WP), that exact data should be available at the source cited. And there is a source cited for each set of information. The maps link to an article with sourced tables that contain the data. (This could be more transparent, IMO, but the data is there.) In the case of this article, though, there are four references and it isn't clear which data points come from which reference. I could imagine, say, that if each of the columns in this article comes from a particular source, then the column header could be linked to the source. If, however, the information in the table cannot be located in one of the sources, but is new information derived from data in the sources, then it is original research. If nothing else, a description of how the data was derived, and which data points came from which reference, in a paragraph describing the table, would be welcome. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, not all information comes from somewhere. I think you can find things in the references easily enough by opening up the references and using ctrl+F. The way the references are cited in this article is more or less standard for many publications (such as articles in Scholarpedia and many traditional encyclopedias), and it was written in a time when not every line on Wikipedia had "citation needed". To delete an article, you have to provide evidence that the sources aren't there, not just that the citations are not in proper order. I honestly don't want to take on the job of fixing the latter issue, as the subject of the article is of no interest to me, but I think it's clear that it passes WP:V and that a willing editor could produce proper citations from the references already provided. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ita's GAA

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:Notability (sports), WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus due to poor participation. Boleyn (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 September 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 01:36, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:31, 22 September 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Youth Symphony and Chorus

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

Its adult version is notable, but I could not establish reliable sources to prove that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 September 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 01:35, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs available sources added, but appears GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:30, 22 September 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Ben-Ameh

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

I can't find any reliable reference in the article. I tried opening National Mirror and The Sun reference but it led me nowhere. The Nokia award she won is not a "major" award (Wikipedia standard). If significant coverage can not be found then delete Darreg (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Darreg. I wasn't able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the four references cited in the article, one is unreliable as it is a self published blog source. The first two being the National Mirror and The Sun newspapers appears to be fabricated because they simply do not exist. As for the Bellanaija article, the subject got little to no mention. Versace1608 (Talk) 23:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep This singer does have some independent coverage in the media. I've just retrieved and added a couple of references because the previous citations were mainly dead links. Stanleytux (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reliable sources Stanleytux added to article shows that the subject is somewhat notable. Versace1608 (Talk) 12:31, 8 September 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 03:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching through British media sources and didn't find anything. Of the current references, there may be only one solid one, the rest are questionable (Internet newspaper for young Nigerians, several are blogs). I tried listening to her performance on YouTube; one song has 36,000 plays (encouraging) but the rest have only views in the double or triple digits (discouraging). At this point I think it is WP:TOOSOON but I am willing to change my vote if more/better sources can be found and added to the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Undecided Possibly the Naija.com references will work in conjunction with the Sun and Mirror, so I'll switch to Undecided, based on comment below by Stanleytux.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't think it is necessary to start looking up this singer in those British websites and newspapers because it appears her career took off in Nigeria notwithstanding the fact that she was born in England. Speaking of reliable sources, apart from YNaija (an internet newspaper with editorial board), it is not just one reliable source supporting the article, there are the The Sun and National Mirror sources which are pretty much reliable (and meet RS) especially when it is Nigeria-related topics. Stanleytux (talk) 20:18, 19 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because, despite there being some news exposure during May 2011, it was very largely lengthy statements or question-and-answer interviews by her, rather than reporting and analysis about her. The text-speak interview is particularly cringeworthy. I'm curious to know how important the Nokia First Chance show is (she won it), but can't find a great deal about it. If it was a major, widely followed TV talent show then, as winner, she may be notable enough. If it's a minor satellite TV show, then the opposite would be true. Sionk (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I found more mentions of this singer in the media here, here and here, and I bet there are more out there. I think with all these mentions from reliable news medias coupled with the ones in the article does indicate some notability. Stanleytux (talk) 00:43, 23 September 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 action. At this stage, Pandemonium (Cavalera Conspiracy album) redirects to Babylonian Pandemonium. Both are possible titles for the article but the album hasn't been released yet so we simply don't know. Regardless of the title, it seems we are talking about a notable album. Whatever editorial action needs to be taken after release, it probably shouldn't involve AFD which isn't for clean-up and isn't designed to solve title questions. Yes, I'm "involved" but there's nothing deletion-related being proposed so I'm closing this to allow views with regard to the article title and other non-deletion-related concerns to be directed to the article's talk page (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian Pandemonium

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

Wrong title (a user started the deletion discussion without adding this page, which I did for them). Jax 0677 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jax, what's the title supposed to be? Why not just move it to whatever the proper title is and speedy-delete the old title (or leave it as a redirect if its an old working title and still a plausible search term or something)? St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is significant debate about whether the article should be titled Pandemonium (Cavalera Conspiracy album), or Babylonian Pandemonium, and I wanted to resolve the issue before doing anything. The old title has already been taken, and @Xiejunmingsa: started a deletion discussion without creating this very page that we're on. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jax. I think, then, that this should be closed as out-of-process so that the discussion about a title has been resolved. We would only have a deletion discussion if, having resolved the title dispute, the subject was considered non-notable. I don't think that's the case here. Whatever the title, this is a notable thing, right? Once it's actually released (in a couple of weeks) the title can be resolved by... you know... reading the album cover. Any objection (from anyone) to me closing this? St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I believe that since the retitle was done by cut and paste, that we must determine the correct title, and arrange for a proper history merge to that title, etc. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but I don't think this is the right place for that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have reverted the cut and paste move, as any moves like that (wherever the article may go) should be done at WP:RM. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so then does this still need deleting? What are we trying to achieve with this AFD? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I propose redirecting Pandemonium (Cavalera Conspiracy album) to Babylonian Pandemonium FOR NOW. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, and that redirect is in place now, right? That's the current situation and we're not proposing to change it, right? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am not proposing such a change. I have no objection to closing this discussion, but I also have no objection to hearing the opinions of others either. I am not going to close the discussion due to WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:28, 23 September 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) 12:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanami Sano

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

A voice actress with just one role. Either a redirect or a userfy at the best. Or just delete. Wgolf (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding anything in any of my news sweeps, such as Japan, entertainment, world, US. Plus pageview tallies are meager, confirming a non-notable actress.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find evidence that would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. If we had an article on Ano natsu no hi I would suggest a redirect, but.... --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kitoye Branco-Rhodes

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

The article claims he contested to be governor of Lagos in 1997 and 2003 but I can't find any reliable source to support that claim. This politician obviously fails WP:GNG. I know he will be contesting for the PDP ticket in 2015 elections but that is not notability since anyone can decide to contest in any political-party primary election. Democracy came to Nigeria in 1999 so we can safely rule out the 1997 claim. In 2003 he probably made only his party's primaries but not the main election. Darreg (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 8 September 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 01:44, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate for an election that the person didn't win is not a claim of notability that gets a person past WP:NPOL, so the only thing we can measure him against is WP:GNG. But there's not a single reliable source being cited here (#1 is a discussion forum, #2 is a blog and #3 is his own campaign's promotional Facebook page), so GNG is not satisfied. No prejudice against recreation if he wins election to office in 2015, but he's not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG and there's no evidence he meets WP:POL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Hergott

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

Non-notable film director. Note: most of the text of the article has been removed as a copyright violation; it did not show him to be notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 8 September 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 01:44, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm not seeing a substantive or properly sourced claim of notability even in the older copyvio version. A Wikipedia article is not something that everybody who has ever directed any film at all automatically gets to have just because you can primary source the fact that their film(s) exist — rather, you have to cite enough reliable source coverage to demonstrate that the director actually meets one or more of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. (And winning second place in a local bodybuilding contest is a Community Chest card in Monopoly, not something that gets you an encyclopedia article.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if the substance and sourcing can be improved — e.g. if he wins or gets nominated for a major film award, etc. — but this version's definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 26 September 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. Tawker (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ganadera Santa Fe de Sollocota

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't verify WP:NOTABILITY. Previous AfD closed as no consensus as @Epeefleche: was the nominator and there were no comments/votes from others. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 8 September 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 01:43, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realise this has not attracted responses thus far, but as this is it's second AfD, and the first was only closed as no consensus because it didn't have enough responses, I feel this should be relisted as many times as possible so we can finally get an answer on this. Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find GNG-worthy sources through the usual searches, I did see a court case that mentioned the property. Borderline A7. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same results as Joe Decker, nothing to establish notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Mission Ministries

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 September 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 01:43, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't even asserted, much less established. —Swpb^talk 22:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appear to be no sources for this other than "World Heritage Encyclopedia" whose reliability I am unsure of. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:04, 25 September 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ecrans d'Afrique

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

I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong, but I could not verify the notability of this journal. It has been tagged for notability for over six years (a prod was removed in 2010); no one has yet verified that this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 8 September 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 01:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The length of time for which this has been tagged for notability is immaterial. James500 (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources include, in particular, this,this, this, this and Schmidt, Nancy J. "Special Issues of Periodicals on African Film." African Studies Review 40.01 (1997): 113-119. James500 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This contains a detailed annotated bibliography which includes many of the articles from the journal. As does this. James500 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I haven't tried to cite every source available. James500 (talk) 01:08, 23 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator's hopes have been realised, per James500. Nicely done. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found by James500 are just simple in-passing mentions. No in-depth coverage, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total nonsense. An extensive annotated bibliography is in depth coverage. A passing mention is something like an entry in a phonebook or a citation. James500 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total nonsense indeed. A few one-line comments on some articles do not constitute an in-depth discussion of the periodical. --Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are more than one line and there is more than a few of them. GNG needs to be rewritten to stop people from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it isn't significant. They also satisfy LISTN. I don't think your argument has any merit. James500 (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Williams

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

This person is not notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Plus, the article is probably confusing people since there is another economist named Robert G. Williams who actually is a professor at Guilford College. I think we should delete the existing article. bender235 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 September 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 01:38, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He runs a business that puts out the articles that source him--clearly not independent. Running a business does not guarantee notability and there's certainly nothing to show he's a notable academic. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the three sources that are not his own site #1 (dadsnow) is not a reliable site (no "about", no info on who runs it); #4 the DHHS report, is 404; #5 does not mention him at all. LaMona (talk) 21:49, 30 September 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) slakr^\ talk / 05:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Caring Magic Circus

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

I'm happy to accept that there might be non-English sources available but all of the English or joint-language sources seem to emanate from the organisation itself rather than from independent sources. Despite the number of people the article claims it aims to serve, the group is actually very small and has completed a small number of event considering its 5-year history. Given the apparent lack of coverage, I would argue this fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This organization puts up media coverage they've gained on its own website.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read much of that but some of what I could translate suggests much of it is self-published or "advertorial". But if there really is significant coverage in independent reliable sources then I'll happily withdraw this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:01, 15 September 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 03:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Founder recently nominated for Asia Television's 2014 Hong Kong Loving Hearts Campaign award ATV press release (the 12th nomination) for his work with the circus and could grant good notability (either to him or the circus) should he won accolade from here. Also nice is to retrieve some previous versions of Guinness World Records' website for the "largest magic lesson" claim. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good information, but that would generally confer notability on him rather than his group. Groups don't inherit notability from their notable members. That said, I don't think the nomination would be enough for him to be considered notable. A win, on the other hand, might be a different story. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware. Anyway the results are not yet out since the public vote just started not too long ago (5 days ago), so it will have to wait. Consider a delete with no prejudice of recreation from me if the AfD has to be decided before that. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:53, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:52, 22 September 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. The discussion herein is essentially split between redirection and merging. Discussion regarding this matter can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Crusade (1481)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Turkish Crusade (1481) (2nd nomination)

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

New stub article duplicates existing Ottoman invasion of Otranto. Recommend reducing to a redirect Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to try using Twinkle for the first time, hence accidentally created a second nom. My bad. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hawkeye7. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Portuguese expedition. It's not a duplicate. For example, it gives the date and incipit of the papal bull of crusade, which the other article only mentions obliquely. Oppose redirecting, but support either a merger or a renaming. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 12 September 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 03:56, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, leaving a Redirect. This could form a brief footnote or subsection in the Otranto article, if there are suitable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 22 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olayinka Thomas-Ogboja

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

Does not currently contain any reliable source. I can't find any reliable coverage. Most links present are "About Us" primary sources of a company Darreg (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article looks like advertising. Spumuq (talk) 08:33, 9 September 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 03:55, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have a feeling that this is very well-meaning, getting African women into Wikipedia. However, the references are all blog posts (which may be all that is available) and are promotional in nature. The photograph also appears on one of the blog posts and may well be a copyright violation - it was uploaded by the creator of the article, but there is no information regarding rights. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Delivery

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

This does not seem to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Fails WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:15, 14 September 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 04:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Personally I want to know where the heck the comment about it airing 134 time HBO comes from. Still leaning towards delete. Wgolf (talk) 05:46, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NF. It seems the film probably exists, and the article format and style can be addressed, but it lacks sources toward notability. The most notable thing I could find (and lacking commentary, it's not enough) was that the film was one of the films screened at the first Dominican Film Festival in Seoul, South Korea, an event itself possible notable as being organized by the Dominican embassy in the Korean capital and having the backing of the South Korea Secretary of State for Culture and the Korean Directorate of National Film (DINAC).[39][40][41] While being the first such event could grant the event itself a certain notability, being one of many films screened there does not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:22, 1 October 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. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Line Bazar Purnia

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

Indiscernible. Is this a quarter of the city or a building? As there are no sources (and no effort to find them for months) not understandable. Couldnt find much myself. (See this: http://purnia.hpage.co.in/doctors_97050009.html) I believe it is NN. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Purnia. CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:55, 8 September 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 04:01, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:48, 22 September 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendr Dosieah

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could find no indepth coverage, coverage merely confirms he is an ambassador LibStar (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Spumuq (talk) 08:37, 9 September 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 03:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador to one of the world's major countries. Many of us consider ambassadors, especially those to and from major countries, to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

have you even searched for indepth coverage to establish notability? Rather than saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that you and I disagree over this issue, so responding in the same way every time I post my opinion in an AfD is really not constructive. In my opinion he is notable by virtue of his position. Period. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that he is notable? Spumuq (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence he holds the position. And the position is the evidence of his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability criterion giving ambassadors inherent notability like say an Olympic athlete so using the by virtue of his position argument carries zero weight, how about actually looking for sources to establish notability? LibStar (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you're getting upset about other editors disagreeing with you and shouting about opinions having no weight on AfDs, which is utter and complete rubbish, as a look at any AfD will tell you. Wikipedia is not about dogma and rules. It's about getting a consensus through discussion. I have put my opinion. You have put yours. Leave other editors to put theirs and try to control this tendency you have to try to shout others down and rubbish their opinions if they conflict with your own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the time spent arguing here you could have done a search for sources. I presume you have searched and found nothing in depth. If you are serious about ambassadors being inherently notable put up a proposal at WP:BIO and gain proper consensus. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rules, rules, we must have rules, everything must be governed by rules...sigh! Luckily, that's not what Wikipedia's all about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ambassadors are not inherently notable and are held the same standard as every other subject here. We require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are a handful of editors who believe that ambassadors should be notable by default, mere appointment being sufficient. It's a valid opinion but not the prevailing one. I, too, would rather see the question resolved than have to deal with these on a case-by-case basis, but as with diplomati-spam embassy articles, these pop up like weeds. There are dozens and dozens of genuinely notable diplomats with acres and acres of coverage who wouldn't need some special notability guideline conferring inherent notability and yet we don't have articles here for them. The US ambassador to Australia is a f**king rock star - his sweaters get nationwide coverage down here (I kid you not). The truly notable ones don't need any form of special consideration. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Stalwart111. I do find it interesting that our guidelines explicitly do not cover ambassadors in WP:NPOL, but there is also not a separate guideline for them. Given that though, we need to go with BIO or GNG, and there are not sources to meet those requirements. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:07, 3 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EUR.1 movement certificate

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

Does not seem to be encyclopedic and has no sources. I doubt this should be an article here, looks more like an official document such as a visa application form. Please discuss. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the certificates are important and there are a lot of sources about them. Spumuq (talk) 08:37, 9 September 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 03:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is not a document, it's about a notable document important in international trade, and therefore an appropriate article for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:47, 22 September 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. softdelete Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etc (Singaporean band)

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

No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Was created by WP:SPA several years ago and has been tagged for notability for over six years, without being proven. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. --Bdboyc (talk) 19:23, 12 September 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 03:58, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We Voyagers

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

Possibly fails on WP:MUSICBIO TheGGoose (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any coverage in reliable sources to show that this band meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 20:39, 9 September 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 03:57, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PEACOCKy non-notable band spam. no sources. band's myspace page and a blog are the only apparent outside links.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:38, 1 October 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), though the latter, inlined article needs a separate AfD (or, as it would happen, RfD) slakr^\ talk / 05:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished Career Award

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY criteria Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award itself has not been mentioned in any independent sources. I also want to nominate the following page for also being a non-notable award given by the AHPA. Both articles are listed under very generic titles that are misleading as to the specific nature of their subjects. I'm sure the AHPA is not the only body that gives a "Distinguished Career Award."

--Gccwang (talk) 08:17, 9 September 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 04:11, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:45, 22 September 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. WP:BIODELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eshaya Draper

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

Does not (yet) meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We will wait for him to become a notable actor and then make an article for him. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 September 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 04:15, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hulme

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

Non-notable college swimmer. Fails the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major college records or awards), and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as there are no independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of Mr. Hulme.-- danntm ^T _C 23:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding significant coverage of the type needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helge Brattebø

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

It's not clear whether this person meets our notability requirements for academics. Highest cites on Scholar seem to be 42; is that enough? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is not very well structured, but member of a learned society and department head passes it for me. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 14 September 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 04:57, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Meets the professor guidelines. Wgolf (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:42, 26 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madhva Kanva Mutt

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

This does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE. However, there are so many issues with this article, that it is possible I am not seeing the wood for the trees, so I chose not to use prod. Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article failing WP:N and WP:V both. CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:31, 9 September 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 04:58, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:41, 22 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miyea Satrey

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

Trying to find anything about this film and no luck at all. Wgolf (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Only things I've found was a watch this online link and a link to a Cambodian site. Wgolf (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:40, 22 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Haldeman

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

Article is just an industry profile: some stats, competition history, and a long quote. Sourcing is sparse and, unsurprisingly, consists of just some stats, competition history, and quotes - no real coverage. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As original editor of this article, I have since added a new section on Media coverage of the subject person as well as added additional content and references.

In creation of the article, I used the following already existing articles as reference points from two other competitors to ensure uniformity in the topic area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jen_Hendershott

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Wilkins-Lee.

I believe after review of these accepted articles in comparison, you'll find the article I created (and have continued to expand on since first created) far exceeds that standards of these two accepted articles. My intent is to continue to expand the references and content as time permits and as is the desire of the project, create something worthwhile for others to edit as well. As such, I would respectfully request you remove your proposal to delete. (Surtom (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You would have been better off choosing different articles as templates: both are poorly-sourced, while the second article is just poor all around. That said, I looked over your added references and most of it is trivial. The only reliable independent source offering significant coverage is a Flex piece commemorating her winning the magazine's own "Rookie of the Year" title, which seems a bit self-serving. But that brings me to a problem I should have originally mentioned: Haldeman has not won anything notable. Hendershott, for example, has won two notable international competitions to claim notability. Haldeman has nothing comparable, thus failing WP:ANYBIO in addition to WP:BASIC. She's a run-of-the-mill competitor. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the sources aren't reliable but some are, and I think that there is enough news reports and other reliable, independent, secondary sourcing to establish notability. -- NickGibson3900 ^Talk 05:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the coverage is the routine/trivial kind from the (at best borderline?) sources that bodybuilders get as a byproduct of just being on the professional circuit and does not establish notability. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't disagree that the sport and it's athletes do not receiving the same level of online or news coverage that other sports such as American Football, Baseball, Basketball or Soccer receive, but it is a sport that does have a fully vetted amateur and professional league with bylaws now referenced in the article. I also don't disagree that using the two templates I began with, in comparing them to other professional athletes, leaves a lot to be desired. But I think you can also see, I have taken the time and made the effort to continually improve it over time. That would be my intent going forward with it as well. Finally, as for not winning anything "notable". She has won 3 major shows (2102 Junior Nationals overall and back to back wins in 2013 in Tampa and Tahoe) as well as placing top 5 in the IFBB's premier event at the Olympia 2 years running, while only having competed for 3 years total (only 2 years as a professional) says a lot for her potential as a new star in the sport. Hendershott didn't win a 2nd time, after winning her first show in 1999, for another 6 years. My bottom line with the article is, she is a notable person within her sport and as such, deserves an article as much as any other listed under List of female fitness & figure competitors and much more so than many of them. I also am committed to improving the article over time and as it does, I'm sure others interested will also add their edits to it as well. (70.196.3.140 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Further research on the basis of being notable under the guidelines referenced also point to the following facts. Under WP:ATHLETE, there is no notability criteria listed for the sport of bodybuilding specifically (maybe there should be), but in looking at all other sports, a recurring point is noted again and again - “Having either appeared or competed in a sanctioned event for the sport”; not only when winning the premier event sanctioned by those bodies, as it is stated earlier, is it a requirement to be known as being notable. It is understood that for fitness and figure competitions, those sanctioning bodies are at the professional level, the IFBB and within the United States at the amateur level, the NPC. To that end, if there were a section for being a notable person in her chosen sport, she’d far exceed that standard at both the professional and amateur level. As she is also a fitness model, with numerous published photo shoots that are easily found across the Internet (although they weren't listed as references), one criteria for being notable under WP:ENT and WP:NMODEL is that "they have a large fan base or cult following". The subject of the article in question currently has well over 265,000 likes on her Facebook IFBB fan page and almost 5,000 regular followers on her Twitter account as an IFBB Professional. This I think more than qualifies as having met that criteria. Now, I would cite that the WP:ATHLETE does not list such criteria, but I note it as I also believe it clearly shows she is a notable person in her sport and her chosen professions, including fitness modeling. (70.196.3.140 (Surtom (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Just to make sure, you and the previous IP are the same person, right, Surtorn? Anywho, your "having appeared or competed..." quote does not appear in WP:ATHLETE as a general principle. Rather, select sports reference "sanctioned" events in their specific guidelines, but as you note, bodybuilding competitions are not included at all as a sport. (Is it even a sport?) Can we just apply other sports' criteria to bodybuilding competitions? I'm not so sure, given that many of these sports garner so much coverage that merely being in them can imply notability, while bodybuilding competitions remains low-profile to the point that anything short of winning an international event seems nonnotable and non-coverage-getting. As to Haldeman's accomplishments, it seems to me she has won a junior event, two regional events, and has twice finished as a finalist in a "figure" subcategory at the Olympia events with 15+ others. Your reference to her top-five finishes at Olympia is a bit misleading. Ms. Olympia is the premier title for female bodybuilding at Olympia and Haldeman has not been even a finalist for that. As for WP:ENT, her number of Facebook likes and Twitter followers are actually rather unimpressive and really not much of an argument. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First yes, please forgive me as with that minor edit, I wasn't signed in and didn't realize it, so immediately went back in and corrected it and resigned it. Please accept my apologies for that. As to your questions, let me try to explain the equivalency in the sport to others, certainly not apples to apples, but to make a comparison, you have to draw it from some place. Her achievement in becoming a professional can only come at winning certain NPC"Pro qualifying" shows each year designated by the IFBB, the top of these being the Junior Nationals. So, where some qualify as a professional by winning one of the other amateur pro qualifying shows, she qualified as a professional by winning the top amateur show in the United States. Think of it like winning the US Nationals in Figure Skating. Another comparison to draw is on the other 2 shows she won. In the IFBB, you must qualify to even compete in the Olympia. Three ways to do that - either place in the top 5 the year prior (which is how she qualified in 2013 after placing top 5 in 2012), making that a notable event in her career, by winning a National Show that provides automatic qualification to the Olympia (both the Tahoe and Tampa shows are two of those National shows) and finally through a qualification system of points, based on top finishes in other qualifying shows and then accumulating enough points to attain one of the top point gatherers in that qualification year (which is how she achieved an invite in 2012). As for placing top 5 two years in a row at the Olympia itself, that's a rare feat in the sport in of itself and her doing it 2 years running (in her 1st two years as a pro) once again qualifies as a significant event in any career of a professional in the sport. Of course, if WP:ATHLETE had a section denoting necessary achievements for fitness and figure competitions, none of this discussion would be required. I for one would be happy to work with anyone on adding such a section. But I still contend, within her sport, she certainly is a notable figure worthy of an article and also has a sufficient fan base within the sport and in social media to back that up. She also is a sponsored GNC (store) athlete and represents that company at shows she does not compete in as well as promoting their products at Health and Fitness Expos throughout the country. As I'm sure you can understand, a major corporation like that would not provide a sponsorship contract to an athlete if their notoriety and association with their product wasn't to their business benefit. Although not a criteria to qualifying someone as being "notable", that additional fact also supports my case. She also is sponsored by smaller companies, but GNC (store) believes enough in her ability to promote their products that she was signed by them as one of their GNC Athletes. I hope all these explanations and clarifications on my part would help to serve that she is in fact a notable person and worthy of an article. (Surtom (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Forgive me, I did forget to address one of your last comments. The Ms Olympia competition is just one of the events annually at the Olympia competition, there is also the Mr Olympia, Fitness Olympia and Figure Olympia competitions. She placed top 5 in 2012 and 2013 in the Figure Olympia competition as a professional figure athlete. Also wanted to clarify and clear that up (Surtom (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

To give a brief response because it's late... an issue I have is that, from just a bit of watching a Mr. Olympia event, bodybuilding competitions are quite obviously a form of pageantry, not a sport. There's no athletic ability involved. Rather, you pose on a stage and your physique is judged in the hopes of winning a pageant-esque title. I also question the notability of two top-five placements. A quick glance at Ms. Olympia makes it seem like repeatedly winning the whole shebang—let alone just high placements in a subcategory—is actually quite common. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 04:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that is one of the beauty of sports, both in participation and following it - not all sports are for everyone. Looking at WP:Athlete I personally would question Badminton as a sport establishing notability. I played it when I was 7 and probably will once again when I'm 70. But to those that either compete in those events, or follow the sport, it is in fact a sport. It has rules, sanctioning bodies, qualification requirements and differing levels of ability. Another might be sumo wrestling for those same reasons. So, one could make an argument whether this sport or that sport is in fact, worthy of being a sport, but that's merely because they don't follow it or aren't interested in following it. But to those that do, it is very much, a sport. Also, NBC is televising the Olympia competition, so to invest dollars in broadcasting it, also shows to even the most discerning, that it does hold an interest to the viewing public. Now, one final point specifically to the IFBB Figure Division in which she competes. It was first recognized and established in 2003 (11 years ago) by the IFBB and has since produced about 45 professionals a year (meaning around 500 if my math is correct) through it's qualification processes worldwide. As such, being one of those 500, she again is notable to those in the sport or those that follow it. As with most any sport, rising to the top of it is only accomplished by a very few. Literally each year, 1000s of women enter shows big and small throughout the world, as it is an International sport, and only those 45 or so become a pro. With that, the actual competition pool to reach the Figure Olympia (qualifying for it) are then down to about 15. So, to say the same seem to win and then making it in the top 5 doesn't seem noteworthy, I would disagree based on that information alone. Only the elite of the Figure Division of the IFBB make it to that level. So for her, it shows she is in fact notable in the fact that in 2+ years of being a pro, she's qualified for that sport's the pinnacle competition each year and has, and through her top 5 finish last year, again qualified to compete again later this fall. Whether you believe it to be a sport or not, that's your opinion and I won't question that because that's how you feel about it much like I don't think badminton is either. But the fact remains it is; by every guideline laid out for the establishment any sport, in by laws with professional and amateur ranks, having a worldwide participatory and fan following base, having news coverage, as well as television coverage. Specifically to her, within the IFBB's Figure Division, she is established as a notable athlete and elite competitor. This discussion shouldn't really be about whether Bodybuilding and fitness and figure competitions are in fact a sport (as they are both well established topics on Wikipedia), but rather whether she is notable within that sport. I believe the article establishes that with quantifiable references of her accomplishments to date and through our cordial discussions here, I have provided additional explanations I believe to back that up. (Surtom (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Again, on a side note, I'd like to again offer my assistance in establishing proper criteria in WP:Athlete for the sport of body building and in particular the fitness and figure competitions. I'm not certain if that article is in fact, open to free editing that would allow me to do it on my own, or if it needs some form of coordination in which I could provide assistance. I believe, if that were established, this discussion would not be necessary, nor what I'm sure are countless others that revolve around the same subject over notability of competitors in the sport. Like everyone here, my aim is to make this all a better place to foster contributions and legitimate content. Not having that for this particular subject matter must certainly cause this to occur again and again. (Surtom (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Ugh... You really need to keep the responses shorter. People always skip discussions that look like novels. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 12:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize sincerely and really have no more factual information to provide to the discussion, but it seems this is all based on your feelings on whether bodybuilding is a sport, not whether or not this person is a notable figure within it. (Surtom (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The person going on at-length over whether this is a sport or not is you, not me. Either way, WP:ATHLETE doesn't include it. But my basic argument remains the same: Haldeman's notability claim is undermined by trivial sourcing (my original point) and the lack of notable wins (my second point) in a sport/pageant that receives little coverage. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To your 1st point - since it was made, I have added sufficient content to the article of outside sources and references that I believe now counter that point. To yuor 2nd, my belief it is made on solely your personal opinion of it being a "pageant" where it is federated by an International Professional Association based in Spain and a Amateur Organization based in the US, of which she's won 2 major professional shows and the top amateur show she could compete in, all outlined inf acts presented here and referenced in the article. So, without WP:Athlete having facts to the contrary, I believe the criteria for her being notable has been clearly established (Surtom (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article well structured with sufficient sources to denote reliable, independent references, as well as secondary sources and news coverage to establish notability for the article's subject. (Thebookmkr (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

— Thebookmkr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Are there are standards for notability of bodybuilders and does she meet them? Most of the cites in the article seem sketchy, but some suggest merit. Best I can tell her claim for notability is "winning the 2012 National Physique Committee Junior National Championships by winning 1st place in her Figure Class and being named overall winner of the Figure Competition." Is that notable?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no notability standards for bodybuilders unfortunately. Whether those wins make her notable is part of the lengthy debate above. I say no, Surtom says yes. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 12:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with Mbinebri , with such notability standards set, this would not have been an issue one way or the other. Although I think the article has been improved since first marked for possible deletion (Surtom (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Perić

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Perić has played in A Lyga. Since that league is confirmed as not fully pro at WP:FPL, playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:18, 28 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owana Salazar

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

The article appears to be sourced to a single magazine article and seems to be a non notable subject, known for only one "event", being related to previous royals of a kingdom lapsed for over 100 years. BLP concerns of subject known for one event, privacy of names as well as people who are relatively unknown.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible borderline notablilty. Requesting the opinion of others. See "books" and "scholar". --Mark Miller (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issue/problems - The main reason this article is nominated for deletion is that I feel it is promotional on two fronts, political (sovereignty movement) and professional (musical career) and that reliable sources are few to none with only a passing mention. Just trying to find a reliable source for the birth dating was an issue, but perhaps someone has access to a birth certificate as a source. In looking for a source for the birth record I noticed that "Hawaiian Music History" is not a reliable source and has no editorial over sight, no particular reputation for fact checking and is the creation of a single person. The link there to the official website of Salazar links to an empty page.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in this source [42], described as a featured artist on 'Masters of Hawaiian Slack Key Guitar'. The award was given to the producers rather than the artist, but it won a Grammy and reached number fifteen on Billboard's Top World Music Albums chart. It would depend on exactly what the significanc was of her contribution - I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Notability seems borderline at best. Could be seen as promotional.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: you don't have to !vote twice. Being the nominator, it is assumed that you support delete until you withdraw. So, !voting again is not required. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is an absolute....don't ever alter the posts of others. I was originally not sure whether the article should or should not be deleted but have decided there is not enough reliable sources for notability. State awards are not enough for encyclopedic notability by Wikipedia Standards. These AFD's should never be seen as a direct insult or criticism of the biography subject, but the subject does not appear to be notable enough for a stand alone article. Mention on other articles should suffice. I suggest merging the content to another relevant article. Possibly to Slack-key guitar or the newly created, Masters of Hawaiian Slack Key Guitar.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as separate article Notable as a local musician in the Hawaiian genre. The article is unsourced but reliable sources exist. Certainly she is as notable as the people linked in this paragraph on slack-key guitar:

"Many currently prominent Hawaiʻi-based players got their starts during the Cultural Renaissance years: Cindy Combs, Ledward Kaapana, George Kahumoku, Jr., his brother Moses Kahumoku, Dennis Kamakahi, Ozzie Kotani, three Pahinui brothers (Bla, Cyril, and Martin), the Emerson Brothers and Owana Salazar. These artists, and slack key in general, have become well-known outside of Hawaiʻi largely through George Winston's Dancing Cat Records record label, which has most often showcased the music in solo settings."

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried too much either way, but that is only a passing mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on multiple state-level awards. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:21, 13 September 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 12:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 22 September 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.

[insert of strikeout begins here. 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)]
~~The result was delete. (soft), which obviously means it's free for anyone to draft/userfy. slakr^\ talk / 05:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
[insert of strikeout ends here. 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)]
The result is incubate. Editors agree that the article is not currently suitable for mainspace and agree that it is has the potential for improvement in draftspace. The closing administrator has incubated the article. See User talk:Slakr#WP:Articles for deletion/Rock Revolt Magazine. A discussion section is open on the talk page here at WT:Articles for deletion/Rock Revolt Magazine#Follow-up discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Revolt Magazine

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

Appears to be non-notable magazine. Article lacks non-trivial support and it does not appear support is available. reddogsix (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the nominator has edited the article ten times since nominating for deletion, this is evidence that the nominator does not consider the nomination argument strong enough to get the article deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - LOL, if I did not believe it was non-notable I would not have nominated it. Additionally, if I felt it was adequately supported as a result of additional edits, I would have indicated so and closed the AfD. Perhaps I don't give up on articles as it appears you would once you nominate them for deletion and perhaps I am hoping the article can be saved by someone. reddogsix (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This IMO is a close case for deletion with the evidence I have found: the magazine is cited 11 times on Wikipedia, and there is a similar body of usage on Google Web. Google news finds one reference. You tried a speedy deletion ten minutes after the article was created, which seems incompatible with the statement "perhaps I am hoping the article can be saved by someone." After the speedy was declined noting that you had not given the article enough time, it was another hour and ten minutes before the deletion nomination. What was the point of adding maintenance tags after the nomination? Unscintillating (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since when is being cited in Wikipedia a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? I suggest you sharpen up on Wikipedia guidelines or if I have missed something, please cite the criteria so I can review it. There are 142 hits in Google. the majority of them are equal to "so and so, was interviewed in Rock Revolt Magazine" with no further mention of the magazine. Hardly valid, non-trivial support or hardly a major body of work. Only one reference in Google news? The news article was not even about the magazine nor did it mention the article beyond a few words. The precise statement in the article was, "...RockRevolt Magazine conducted an interview with vocalist..." This is hardly non-trivial support. Since when is the timing of the deletion nomination relevant in an AfD? Your inclusion of this red herring does nothing to support the/your argument for inclusion into Wikipedia and only masks purpose of the AfD. Either it meets the criteria for inclusion or it does not. I also do not see you casting your !vote for keep - feel free to do so, but be prepared to support your comments. reddogsix (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To answer one of your questions, nominators are advised when creating a deletion discussion, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I stopped the preparation of a !vote when I checked the talk page of the article. Nominators are advised when creating a deletion discussion, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors..." I wonder why you did not withdraw your nomination when the content contributor tried on the talk page to work with you to improve the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) IMO, we have a body of evidence that the topic here is "worthy of notice" (WP:N), as evidenced by on-going attention from various people who cite the magazine, both on and off Wikipedia. I certainly don't agree that we cannot consider the benefit to other Wikipedia editors of maintaining a marginally notable publisher on Wikipedia. What is missing IMO is the requirement of WP:V#Notability, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And this is a point where the content contributor might be able to help. Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have another question, did you consider a bold move of the article to WP:DRAFTS? Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rather than continue to cloud the true purpose of this AfD, let's focus on the true intent of this exercise. Does this article meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. At this point no and I have not seen any argument from you or anyone else that supports notability. There is nothing that stops moving this to a draft or userfication of the article. reddogsix (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've cited and quoted the core concept of WP:N notability to you, "worthy of notice". As for moving this to draftspace, agreed. Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is also my hope that "the article can be saved by someone." As this is my first article created on Wikipedia I am sure that I make mistakes you have all seen countless times. I have linked nearly 50 articles/references to this article (I'm sure there are more yet to find), and I continue to seek out the necessary sources to meet "notability" guidelines. Any additional advice or guidance through this process is appreciated. Thomasworoniak (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Articles created for inclusion into Wikipedia must meet certain criteria. Specifically, they must be notable. The issue often surfaces that "real world" notability differs greatly from Wikipedia based notable. In addition, articles must be supported by non-trivial verifiable, independent resources. The references need to be secondary in nature. The references you point to are not secondary, they are primary. You have not shown there is adequate support for the article. reddogsix (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the reply. While I understand your point, and the reference to the linking of "50 articles" etc. was not meant as criteria for notability, I am confused how an article like Blabbermouth.net passes the notable criteria and RockRevolt does not? I see that the Blabbermouth.net article cites the Blabbermouth.net website as a reference. I'm referring to the roadrunnerrecords.com reference that simply redirects back to the blabbermouth.net website. I'm not trying to shine negative light on blabbermouth, I read their posts regularly...just using it as an example of a music related publication/article, and attempting to learn the difference. Thanks for your patience and assistance. Thomasworoniak (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate, as per the statement of the nominator that "There is nothing that stops moving this to a draft or userfication of the article.", multiple requests from the content contributor for clarification of Wikipedia processes, and my own statement quoting from WP:V#Notability. Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 11 September 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 05:52, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Francois Eid

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

Looks like an ad for his method of surgery. Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web of Science indicates 328 citations and an h-index of 7. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, let alone WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 September 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 05:53, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He lacks the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:47, 28 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dominianni

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted via AfD, and recreated. However, the article still fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 19:56, 30 September 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 Bangerz. This is more or less a redirect flavored SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rooting for My Baby

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

A WP:CFORK that doesn't warrant a separate article per WP:NSONGS due to lack of third-party coverage outside of album reviews. While this gives independent of the Bangerz album, it only provides brief coverage. Should be deleted or redirected to its album Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album, has no notability for standalone article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:12, 14 September 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 05:53, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:32, 22 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Brown

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

Notability not established. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Very small town mayor and unsuccessful congressional candidate. Only reference is a dead link to her 2006 campaign website. Amazing this article lasted almost 9 years Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article also fails to note that not only has she not been the town's Mayor since 2009, but she died two years ago. Aside from short obituaries, the only coverage of any note I can find is this and this. The fact that she was the first black Republican female mayor in Mississippi might have generated enough coverage in reliable sources, but it doesn't appear to have. Tiller54 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Change: Keep I'm changing my vote to keep on the basis of the sources uncovered by Tomwsulcer and Arxiloxos. The coverage is significant enough tht I'm now confident she passes WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Tiller54 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the article was created in 2006 — a time when our notability standards for mayors, and our sourcing requirements, were a lot looser than they are now — and simply hasn't been updated all that much since then. Those standards have tightened up considerably since then, and she doesn't meet the ones that apply in 2014, so this indeed has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up Bearcat. Now that you say it, of course that is obviously what happened and I feel a bit slow for not realizing it myself. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True, she was (died in 2012) mayor of a small town, but her story is interesting, moving from religious outreach to politics, and she is notable for being the first African-American woman mayor of any town in the USA, and she was a notable figure in the Republican convention because of her unique qualifications (ie, African-American, female, mayor who was Republican). She was interviewed on NPR by Tavis Smiley, and she got coverage in a national newspaper -- the Washington Post -- here, and coverage here and depth coverage here, in-depth look into how she came to politics, in-depth treatment here, story that she won an impressive $5 million grant from Washington]. Also she was included in the book 4,000 Ground-Breaking and Pioneering Historical Events. Numerous in-depth reliable independent sources means she passes the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work at finding those sources. However, they are all either obits, or coverage of her failed congressional candidacy. Failed candidacies typically fall under WP:ONEEVENT. None of them seemed to be direct coverage of her term as Mayor (the supposed notable event here). That was only mentioned as biography copy for her candidacy. It was a first, but other African American Female Republicans have achieved it since (Mia Love, Acquanetta Warren). I think the sourcing for her first as mayor is good enough for List of first female mayors and List of first African-American mayors, but not a full biography. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:55, 22 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. Delete. As first black Republican mayor or first black female mayor in the United States, she probably would scrape through. However, the sources appear to say only that she was the first in the state, not the country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPR says she was only African-American woman mayor in the country.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Only" doesn't necessarily equate to "first"! Being the only one at a particular time is irrelevant to her notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but only is unique, therefore relevant to reporters, the media, fodder for a Republican party which strives mightily to show "diversity". :) All told, perhaps it is more of a borderline case, although I'm still leaning to the keep side simply because hers is an interesting if brief story. About the firsts in the US: do you trust Wikipedia as a source? If so, Wikipedia says there were three other Afam women mayors before Brown according to this list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Necrothesp asked if she was the "first black Republican mayor or first black female mayor in the United States". She is neither. The claim is that she is the first if you combined black, republican, and female mayor. Doris A. Davis was elected mayor of Compton in 1973. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 15:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a bit of a stretch for notability for a small-town mayor! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the source Tomwsulcer has provided below says, she was the first black female Republican mayor in the United States, not just in Mississippi. Tiller54 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. To the above add: "'Reconciler' Mayor Gives Tchula, Miss., a Unique Demographic Claim." Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, February 7, 2004 [43]; a full page article in Jet [44]; at least a couple of paragraphs in a 2004 CQ Weekly article (only a snippet visible at GBooks) [45]. I note that the freely visible portion of her Clarion-Ledger obit [46] leads with a comment that her "impact on local and state politics will not soon be forgotten". I think the sources show sufficient local and national coverage, not limited to any single event. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Change: Weak Keep. Great finds Arxiloxos. The first three articles you found predate the congressional run. And the Jet article was from 2002, before she was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, so that was wholly about her achievement as a mayor and getting the federal funding for the town. The Knight Ridder and CQ Weekly articles were from 2004, likely triggered because of her National Convention attendance. Singled out because of her mayorship. The reliable sources apparently consider her small town mayorship to be a notable event. While I'm still skeptical about her being the first African American female Republican mayor in the US, because no sources claim that, it appears the reliable source think she is newsworthy. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should state that Tomwsulcer's find of the Tavis Smiley interview was also from 2004, and not from the 2006 congressional run as I suggested earlier. But no source I read yet says she was the first in the country. The text should not make that claim if the editors of these great sources couldn't even verify that claim. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources here and here. Tiller54 (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This source says she was the first African-American woman mayor in USA who was Republican. FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Clarksdale Press article seems to be quoting her as the source ("the first"). I'm not sure that is a strong enough source (likley self-source) for Wikipedia to repeat such a claim. Especially given that much more authoritative editors specifically chose to make the claim regional or time limited for later articles about her. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Clarksdale Press pegged her correctly. She is the first in the USA. Check for yourself. List of first African-American mayors. See 2001. What is first about Brown is not only being (1) female (2) African-American (3) mayor (4) Republican -- put these adjectives together, and she's the first. There were other Af-am woman mayors (but Democrats). This "seems to be quoting her" -- where did you pluck that from?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting by telling me to check the List of first African-American mayors for myself. See WP:CIRCULAR. However, even if we were to cite Wikipedia as a source, that list doesn't even describe her as the first AA/F/R mayor. It only names her as the first AA mayor of Tchula, Mississipp, and then adds "who was...F/R." As for my suggestion of it being a quote: the Clarksdale Press article put quote marks around the words "the first" for a reason. I understand that to mean a quote. Given that it wasn't credited to her directly, I made the assumption it was from her since all the quotes surrounding that one were directly credited to Brown. If editors have verified a fact, they don't need to quote the interviewee. For the record, I think it is likely she's the first, but the sources don't support that claim. All we have is a single local paper quoting her, and several national papers with full editorial boards, not repeating that claim. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Press Register did not say explictly that it was Brown, herself, who said the words "the first". Quotes can mean various things, depending on context; I read it as meaning emphasis, not that Brown said it directly, but that it is important, so I think your assumption that it was an attribution is incorrect. Merely checking Wikipedia's list of Af-am firsts will show that she is indeed the first African-American woman Republican mayor in the USA. It's that simple. Regardless of how you and others come down to this rather mundane fact, I believe Brown is notable, with a great story, numerous references, easily meeting WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "that simple", it's WP:OR. There's no reason to believe that Wikipedia list is complete and her entry on that list doesn't make any claim of her being first, other than as mayor of that town. Suggesting that Wikipedia list supports the claim that she was the first in the US is WP:OR. I'm sorry we disagree about the use of quotation marks in interview pieces, but we do. What is fact is that the better quality national news sources we have on the subject don't support the claim that she was the first in the US and specifically did not repeat the claim made in this regional paper. I have already changed my vote to keep, but this specific claim about her is not supported by the sources. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that a second news source copied the Press Register story here, further suggesting that they trust the information that she's first in USA. Mississippi Business says she's first in the state and perhaps in the nation, and ABC News channel 11 WTOK says the Honorable Yvonne Brown, the country's first African-American female Republican mayor.. And it is a sad sad day when a Wikipedian does not acknowledge the truthfulness and usefulness of the world's ultimate information resource.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source is the same author as the first (Donald Adderton). Which means there is only one source making this claim, not two. Citing the ABC News is again another news agency specifically choosing to "NOT" making the national claim. Wikipedia does not cite "possibles" as affirmative statements. So we have several very authoritative national news sources specifically choosing not to make this national claim and on the other side we have a single local author publish in two local papers and your WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR arguments (which I don't appreciate you trying to "call me out" for following Wikipedia policy to a tee: please reread those policies and see why citing Wikipedia in your argument does not support your claim). At most, Wikipedia should simply cite the sources by stating somethign like: "Most sources recognize her to be the first AA/F/R mayor in the South, though Donald Adderton of the Mississippi Business Journal cites her as being the first in the US", or something to that effect. And even that I would consider a compromise since Wikipedia should default to the claims national prominent sources like NPR over local papers. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see how you can describe my arguments as circular, and original research, when now we have three sources saying she was the first AA/F/R mayor in the USA, but in the interests of clarity, I amended the lede sentence to be more exact, since there are more sources saying she's first in Mississippi. ABC News said Honorable Yvonne Brown, the country's first African-American female Republican mayor; further, when two newspapers copy the same story, it is not one source, but two, since the second newspaper is trusting the information by printing it, putting its name on the line because if the information is incorrect, it risks its reputation for accuracy. Stories being copied is how the Associated Press works essentially -- one (trusted) reporter's story being picked up by numerous papers around the country, sometimes edited, sometimes not. So I really don't understand why you are hanging on this point of YB not being the first in US when there are so many facts (stubborn things, are they not). But one of the best things about Wikipedia is that we can change your minds in light of new evidence -- we do not have to dig our fingernails in sinking-boat positions -- and consider withdrawing your nomination which reads "Notability not established. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Very small town mayor and unsuccessful congressional candidate. Only reference is a dead link to her 2006 campaign website. Amazing this article lasted almost 9 years". In light of new sources, it is possible to change one's mind.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the introduction now reads true to the sources. Great re-write! I changed my vote to Weak Keep a while back (here), and will change to Keep now. I was just making sure that she wasn't being credited for an achievement the sourcing didn't support. I now think the lead is a spot on representation of what the sourcing supports. Thanks for sticking with it and finding the additional sourcing. If you're interested in self analysis, I'll explain the WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR, but I only do so to clarify the insight. I don't want to appear to be continuing this since I think we reached a great compromise (mostly thanks to your source hunting). With WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR, I was specifically talking about using List of first African-American mayors as a reference to support the claim that she was the first in the US. We should never see this list cited on another Wikipedia page as a citation because it is not a WP:Reliable source. It would be a WP:CIRCULAR argument for Wikipedia to cite itself. Additionally, if we were trying to make the argument that no editor over at List of first African-American mayors has found any AA/F/R mayor who took office earlier than Yvonne Brown, that would by WP:Original research because we would be making an inference, not citing a source. Wikipedia is the most trusted information source, because we cite the most authoritative sources, not because we reach our own authoritative conclusions (or at least we shouldn't). I hope that clears my reason for citing those two policies. Otherwise, it was great collaborating with you, I love an editor who keeps finding additional sourcing instead of only trying to argue the point. Cheers Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I feel similarly. I understand about not using Wikipedia as a source, but in this instance I was using it merely to verify what other (real) secondary sources were saying. If we had found another AA/F/R mayor, in office earlier than YB, then we would know that the sources saying YB was the 1st AA/F/R were wrong; but we didn't; so my guess is she probably is the foist. Cheers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources Tomwsulcer and others found. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:19, 28 September 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. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs on Kidz Bop albums

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

Unsourced summery of the separate albums in the Kidz Bop series. No useful content, as all the songs are listed at the articles of the albums. The Banner talk 09:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:19, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These aren't exactly high profile albums and they're not original songs, merely covers. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 22 September 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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CandyLand (candy)

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

no activity on page in over a year, and absolutely no information of substance

Comment - I completed the nom for IP 73.44.200.126. Ansh666 20:54, 6 September 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 September 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unreferenced, advertising of non notable company, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I already declined the speedy delete nomination for this. The advertising has been removed, and it is not a company so A7 does not apply. There was more information on the page earlier so that negates half of the nomination reason, and I see no effort at all by the nbominator to find sources. Lack of edits does not mean that the page should be deleted. Since this is Pakistan, we need someone that can read and write the languages spoken there. So at this point I see no reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found quite a few English language references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 8 September 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 12:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A good try of a fix by Graeme, but I am not sure whether it is enough to warrant a solid keep. Source 1 comes from a Freeonlineresearchpaper.com which states to be "created by students who wish to publish their research papers to the web", implying self published + possibly not yet peer reviewed. Source 4 is not about the brand specifically. And I don't know whether we can use Source 3, looking like some internal analysis material. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing here to establish notability, and nothing that says WP:NPRODUCT doesn't apply. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any there there. The first source doesn't discuss the subject in "significant detail" as the GNG requires. Neither does the second source. The third is blatantly a promotional stock tender. The fourth mentions the name of the subject only, and doesn't discuss it at ALL. If the fifth mentions it, we can't read it, and even if that did, it'd constitute just a single source. This isn't a "good try" at a fix -- it's throwing up a bunch of non-qualifying chaff in the hopes that we'd just think "Ooo, sources!" and investigate no further. Nha Trang 21:47, 3 October 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 Mormonism Unvailed. (or wherever appropriate). Consensus appears to be against outright keeping; where it gets merged to (and how much, if any) is obviously subject to being decided by consensus at candidate destinations. slakr^\ talk / 05:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ingersoll

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

Non-notable farmer. Living next door to someone notable is not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Philastus Hurlbut or Mormonism Unvailed. Ingersoll seems to be known only for having contributed an affidavit discrediting Joseph Smith's character, which was collected by the Doctor in his Hurlbut Affidavits which contributed to the book. I'm not sure which article is the most appropriate merge target so I'm mentioning both. Ivanvector (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ingersol has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources authored by professional historians. Dan Vogel's Making of a Prophet and D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism are just two works that offer in-depth discussions of Ingersol.Darmokand (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mormonism Unvailed: Ingersol is described in the references Darmokand mentions, but the Wikipedia article makes no claim to Ingersol's own notability, and it cannot, since he never did anything noteworthy; he was just the neighbor of someone that became famous, and then he wrote a short account of his experiences with that famous person and their family. The publication of his "testimony" about Joseph Smith is at best a wp:ONEEVENT, and all of the coverage about Ingersol are debates about his credibility and the credibility of his account. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ingersoll's vitals would be out of place on Mormonism Unvailed and a merge would break categories. Additionally, we have the Tucker account and the Saunders account-- both of which occur well after Mormonism Unvailed and would be out of place there. I do understand your concerns-- Ingersoll is a highly notable historical source for early Mormonism, but no one would ever accuse him of being truthful. :) Darmokand (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Darmokand (talk) 05:25, 20 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/weak merge Based on the cited sources, I don't think coverage of Ingersoll passes the "significant coverage" requirement for notability. Doing a quick run down of the references, once you eliminate the duplications there are 12 unique references. Three make no mention whatsoever of Ingersoll, and one doesn't look like it qualifies as a RS. Of the remaining eight, mentions of Ingersoll are trivial (mainly one line mention as the source for a single affadavit against Smith). Only two really go into any detail, but it's detail about the affadavit and its reliability and not any detail of Ingersoll himself, and even then it's no more than a few paragraphs. Outside of that affadavit, Ingersoll doesn't appear to have any other notability. Hence delete most, merge the relevant material into the appropriate other articles. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So why delete the bio elements from WP? NOTPAPER. It's important for us not to hold critics to higher standards than we otherwise would-- Ingersoll is one of the very first anti-mormons and has significant coverage. It's tempting to purge him, but damnatio memoriae isn't for us. Darmokand (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While wikipedia is not paper, it also is not an indiscriminate collection of information, hence the notability guidelines which require "significant coverage" of the subject. Based on the references cited, I don't see that kind of coverage, only trivial mention and a couple short discussions about the Hurlburt affidavit and not Ingersoll himself. To paraphrase WP:PSEUDO a bit, an article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, in this case the affidavit, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we agree that if Ingersoll were a living person, Wikipedia:Avoiding harm and WP:BLP1E would apply. But he DID die 147 years ago, ya know. <grin> I don't think we need worry about harming the man by including him in an encyclopedia. --Darmokand (talk) 16:07, 29 September 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. As hoax, WP:SOFTDELETE but at least demand some verifiability on restoration, pls j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blame (band)

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

A mix on not notable and hoax. Claims of charting on the UK Rock Chart in the article would satisfy WP:MUSIC if true but the official chart site does not support the claim. The only band called Blame they list [47] is a different older band. This Blame did get a little local interest coverage but nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quayshaun

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

Not notable. Has worked with a bunch of famous people but notability is not inherited from them. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Closest is a PR puff blog post from "a budding Public Relations and Marketing professional", not a reliable source. Sourcing is primarily passing mentions or dead press releases. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard McNamara

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

No significant claim of notability, fails WP:ACADEMIC. Tried searching his name, but could not find any sources mentioning him. Darylgolden^(talk) 12:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not reliable sources to attempt to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. My searches were unsuccessful also.-- danntm ^T _C 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. No significant independent coverage. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 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. Another porn AfD which hinges on an award, but in this case I see good reasons in this AfD that the award is not independently notable. "person won an award that is notable no matter what" is not correct. Being Penthouse Pet is not enough in itself Drmies (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Marie

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as here single award win ,the Juliland Award is is not well known or significant. In addition,her numerous nominations do not indicate notability.Nothing to suggest she passes WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG and PORNBIO, Each and every award is sourced, Plenty of news coverage too [48][49] [50]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Very brief mention of her name in The Daily Mail and The Huffington Post is not enough to pass WP:GNG.Finnegas (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been nominated for Female Performer of the Year by AVN and XBIZ. Female Performer of the Year is the most coveted and prestigious award in every porn industry awards ceremony. When debating the removal of nominations from PORNBIO, we didn't discuss how nominations in certain award categories can be evidence of notability, and we should have. Receiving a nomination for Female Performer of the Year by AVN or XBIZ is certainly evidence that a porn star is not only notable, but an A-lister in the adult industry. Keep, per WP:Ignore all rules; absolutely no doubt in my mind that this adult performer is notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized that she passes criteria #3 in WP:PORNBIO which states "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." She has appeared in two music videos for notable songs and artists. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Making a brief appearance in these two music videos cant be described as featuring. Even if it did they failed to achieve much or in Coolio's case any chart success. Finnegas (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no WP article on Coolio's single "Take It to the Hub" yet, but there is a lot of media coverage of it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's an advertisement for Pornhub, not a Coolio single, and is neither notable nor mainstream. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The Juliland award is given by a porn producer to its own products, and does no more to establish notability than my "World's Greatest Grandpa" Award (and its accompanying coffee mug). Minor roles/appearances in nn music video fail PORNBIO#3, especially when one video is just advertising for a porn site. Community discussion established an "overwhelming consensus" that porn industry award nominations are not significant evidence of notability; Rebecca1990 raised similar arguments in those discussions; they were rejected; and therefore such arguments should be given no weight here. No significant coverage satisfying the GNG, just pop culture namedrops and photo captions. And the porn "A-lister" argument is irrelevant. Aside from the complete lack of evidence support such a blanket claim of stature, it's not the award giver that determines the subject's significance. It's the Wikipedia notability standard, just like it is for webcomics, romance novels, self-published authors, Youtube "celebrities" and other groups where internally generated honorifics have been rejected as reasons for overriding the GNG. IAR is not a reasonable or legitimate basis for overriding basic BLP and RS standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:52, 13 September 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 12:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep person won an award that is notable no matter what, also the person has been nominated more many other awards that shows notability. she was also Penthouse Pet of the Month that's notable as well the only way she wouldn't be considered notable is if she just did porn and got no awards and honors for it. Redsky89 (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to argue that all award winners are inherently notable. PORNBIO requires that the award be well known and significant which is a higher standard than notable. WP:PORNBIO excludes nominations from consideration in notability discussions. Being Penthouse Pet of the Month does not in any way make the model notable. Finnegas (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Juliland is a porn producer, this performer works for Juliland, and their award is no more noteworthy than being the Employee of the Month at Wal-Mart, and no more a sign of notability than Burger King naming their "Satisfries" to be the "Year's Best New Snack" or whatever. A recent RFC produced an "overwhelming consensus" that porn industry nominations are not counted toward notability, and being a Penthouse Pet was similarly removed from PORNBIO years ago. This is just another porn BLP without any reliable sourcing, contrived entirely from PR material and the occasional pop culture namedrop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This porn star (and I do mean porn STAR; she has certainly earned that status) has 23 AVN, XBIZ, and FAME award nominations, half of which are not scene-related or ensemble categories. Do you honestly not realize how ridiculous it is to question the notability of a porn star with 11 performer nominations? Especially when two of those nominations are for Female Performer of the Year. And we never discussed the FPOTY awards and nominations in the PORNBIO discussion like you claimed above, so there is no consensus to reject them. I'm just bringing up the fact that at least one award nomination should be considered evidence of notability when it is the top prize in that entire industry. I do understand the deletion of porn articles that barely passed the previous PORNBIO guideline getting deleted now, but Phoenix Marie passed the previous PORNBIO guideline with flying colors. Another evidence of her notability: She has 48 titles so far for 2014 on IAFD. Do you know how many AVN FPOTY 2014 Bonnie Rotten has? 47. In case you're wondering, I did exclude compilations for both of them. And no, that is not the average number of titles a porn performer stars in every year (or 9 months, since were in September); 99% of performers currently working in the porn industry are actually struggling to get work. The NOTABLE ones, like Marie and Rotten, are the only ones getting booked for 45-50 shoots in 9 months. And isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform readers? Provide them with information they would otherwise seek for in unreliable sources, such as Wikiporno and Boobpedia? Wouldn't you agree that deleting an article that is read nearly 1000 times a day ([51]) prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? And she does pass PORNBIO criteria #3. Both songs in which she appeared in music videos for are notable. "We Still in This Bitch" passes WP:NSONG and "Take It to the Hub" doesn't have an article on it yet, but it does pass GNG. Google it and you'll see how much coverage it has. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many irrelevant girls in the industry and they should definitely not be on Wiki, but Phoenix Marie isn't. She's one of the biggest stars. This concentration on awards is annoying. Not everyone has the luck to get one. It's not everything in being successful. That's not only the case in porn industry. Moreover, as it is important enough to have a List of Penthouse Pets there have of course to be articles to those Pets which are all linked no matter if blue or red.--SamWinchester000 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the Reasons so well explained by Rebecca1990. Phoenix Marie is definitely "one of the biggest stars" and an "A-Lister" in the Industry. I especially agree with Rebecca1990's comment: "And isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform readers? Provide them with information they would otherwise seek for in unreliable sources, such as Wikiporno and Boobpedia?" Glenn Francis (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rebecca1990. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Randall

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

A stage actor from what I can tell is more of a local actor in a area then a major one, trying to find links but no luck so far. Wgolf (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:27, 22 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinidis pastry shops

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

This is a chain of pastry shops in Greece. The article content gives no indication of notability. Google search finds no 3rd party articles about it. The current article text reads 100% like advertising. Macrakis (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 September 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.

Danièle Watts

The result of this discussion was keep. 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 delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan transport and auto industry

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

Essay. The first ref is a site for advertising cars for sale, the second is unavailable. I would suggest a merge to Automotive industry in Kenya except there is no sourced content worth merging. I would suggest a redirect except this is an unlikely search term. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY ...William 13:17, 21 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No unique content here worth salvaging. —Swpb^talk 22:59, 23 September 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. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "delete"s, those who argue for "keep" have given reasons which fail to address the reason advanced for deletion. "It's a notable topic" is not an answer to "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date (Unix)

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

Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. It can, however, be moved to one of the sister projects or a Unix/Linux wiki. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable. SJK (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being documented in numerous textbooks. The page seems to be formatted exactly like a Wikipedia page not a man page and so provides a proper framework for further development. Integration with a more general discussion of date handling in unix-like systems, such as unix time, might be done and we would prefer this to be done by ordinary editing, per our editing policy, rather than being disrupted by deletion. Andrew (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Notability is required but is not enough. Also, complete similarity to man page is not mandatory for deletion. As long as the article is nothing but a manual, it violates WP:NOTMANUAL. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Codename Lisa. These articles on individual commands are basically just how-to pages, and the sources are not much more than that, either. We can not create compliant articles based on manuals that explain nothing more than the options. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to Wikibook, or sell to Microsoft because it is one hell of a documentation. (Not that Microsoft is looking to buy Unix documentations...) Also, please work on developing a policy for speedy-blocking people who come to AfDs and say "it's notable" when the notability is not contested in the first place. Fleet Command (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Timekeeping on Unix is a deep scholarly topic in its own right, and the date command is where that science meets the user. As most of my evening has been taken up dealing with similar nominations, I'll just leave this !vote as a placeholder for now in hopes of adding a citation list in a few days. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes! Timekeeping on Unix is a deep scholarly topic. (Anyone who has multibooted a Windows and Linux knows that.) Only this article is not about that. It is about a date. It explains its switches and gives some examples. It does not explain any of its use cases. A person who has read the date's man page does not need this article; and vice versa. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 10 September 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) 22:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unix time, where it is mentioned in the lead. The Unix date program is obviously verifiable in numerous reliable sources, but I could find little that was encyclopedic beyond the manual entries and derivative texts. What seems most notable about date is the underlying Unix time system, so Unix time is a reasonable target. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, we should preserve basic facts about date on WP instead of deleting them. It is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. It is a shame to lose such a useful reference--transwiki is a good idea. --Mark viking (talk) 23:37, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I already argued in the companion AfD for the Windows DATE command: The test at AfD is WP:Notability, which requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the subject. To be secondary, the source must off the author's own opinions or analysis. It can't just be a summary of the command line options lifted from the man page. Realistically, there are no such qualifying sources. Occasionally, we will allow articles where the sourcing is weak but where there's a consensus a separate article is warranted for other reasons. For example, we have an article on command substitution that survived AfD but that was because there was a consensus it's important construct that appears in many shells and the best way to deal with it would be with a separate article explaining the concept and where it first appeared. I find no similar rationale available here. Nom is correct: Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMANUAL. Msnicki (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relevant information is already in List of Unix commands. The Banner talk 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Date (command), which is also AfDed at the moment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command). I !voted to keep that one as a broader date command article. It seems to me there would be plenty of sources about date commands, but I'm less confident about individual operating systems' date commands. (extended commands over at that AfD). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. I don't see anything specifically worth keeping in this article that is not also in manpages/the POSIX spec, and can be looked up there if other articles need the info. Individual commands can be notable if they have an interesting history, but that has not been established. If something interesting can be found, a new article can easily be written. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PRINT (command)

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

Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. No objection against moving to a sister project or external wiki. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SJK (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator's rationale is correct, the correct !vote would be "transwiki" (to wikiversity or wikibooks) not "delete". NOTMANUAL is not an argument for the elimination of any given content from all WMF projects. James500 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Windows Administration at the Command Line, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with print job and our editing policy is to prefer these. Andrew (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Notability is required but is not enough; articles the are written like a manual are deleted, regardless of their notability. And seriously, half a paragraph does not make anything notable. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are written like a manual are not necessarily deleted. If possible, they are rewritten so that they are not like a manual (WP:IMPERFECT). The passage in question isn't "half a paragraph", it is a headed section that begins on the preceding page. The length of that section is within the range of what I would consider acceptable and Andrew says that there are other sources. James500 (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC) There are other sources and, while I'm not going to provide a detailed webliography, this one, for example, devotes at least three and a half pages to "the print command". James500 (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to gude or a repository of non-notable computing history. Could be redirected, but I'm not really sure why we would do so. Nobody is going to search for "PRINT (command)". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTREPOSITORY has no application to this article as it is not a "repository of links, images, or media files". Even if this is how-to content, the correct !vote is transwiki. WP:NOT is not a free pass to deprive our sister projects of content or to waste time by forcing userfication before transwiki. James500 (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find a book that devotes three and a half pages to this topic without really even trying, any suggestion that it is non notable looks like total nonsense. Bearing in mind the number of sources that refer to "the print command" in those words exactly, "PRINT (command)" is a perfectly plausible search term. And we redirect pages for other reasons than that as specified in WP:R. James500 (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Mac has over 1300 commands, just in the /bin,/sbin,/usr/bin,/usr/sbin directories. Should we create an article for all of those commands? Most of them are described in manual pages. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to discuss every single command on any computer system, any more than it is the role of an encyclopedia to discuss every single specific part in my Toyota. If some of these commands are interesting in themselves, sure create articles on them. But this particular command is not really interesting. It is very rarely used nowadays, since all it can print is plain text, and most people want to print more than that - and even those who do want to print plain text (e.g. source code) will probably use another program to do it. Books on DOS or Windows had a tendency to exhaustively cover every command, since (especially in older versions of those OSes) there were not too many commands to make that impractical. That, I reason, is why you find so many book references to this command, not because it is particularly interesting in itself or commonly used. SJK (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you are making are not supported by any policy or guideline and I do not agree with them. James500 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am inclined towards keeping this article. What NOTMANUAL actually says is: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not" (my emphasis). This article does not consist entirely of instructions. Even if does contain instructions, I don't see why they can't be rewritten as a description of how the command is used etc (WP:IMPERFECT). To put it another way, NOTMANUAL seems to be more about style than substance. James500 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or transwiki to Wikibooks or sell to fund Wikipedia, because it is one hell of a manual. Fleet Command (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete—as overbroad. Limiting the article to a single operating system would work. A grand survey (done well) is just far too much. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC) The command is less common than I had originally thought. There should be sufficient WP:RS out there to keep this. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Could this be redirected to List of DOS commands, with the option of expansion to a dab page if we manage to create articles for different operating systems later? James500 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James500. My difficulty with that redirect is that it's not just a DOS command. OpenVMS has a print command, Beos has a print command.... hmmm, but none of the unicies seem to have had one. Maybe this wouldn't be as huge of a topic as I had originally feared. Anyway, if print (command) was a disambiguation page, then print (DOS command) could certain point to List of DOS commands. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom's objection appears to be with the content of the article, not the topic. The lead does not appear to offend WP:NOTMANUAL. How about we delete most of the body of the article and call it a day? ~KvnG 23:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng:: Or how about merging the lead into List of DOS commands and deleting this one? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but it should be a redirect not a delete and can be worked out on article talk pages, not at AfD. ~KvnG 13:22, 18 September 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) 22:33, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update—I've rewritten the article. It's rough, but it should be enough to get it out of AfD. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was skeptical that this could be done, but Lesser Cartographies has rewritten the article in an encyclopedic manner using reliable sources. Nice work on finding the old references. The rewrite has shown the topic to be notable through the use of multiple reliable sources, which are enough for a modest article on the subject. The article itself has no major problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is small but informative. So I think it should be kept in wikipedia. Unatnas1986 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work Lesser Cartographies! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:36, 24 September 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 DOS commands. (or wherever else appropriate). By and large, there's consensus against outright keeping based predominantly on WP:MANUAL, WP:NOTHOWTO, and WP:N. slakr^\ talk / 05:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DATE (command)

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

Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. It can, however, be moved to one of the sister projects or a Unix/Linux wiki. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no need for articles on individual OS commands, regardless of what the OS is. Especially since this command doesn't do anything particularly interesting; most operating systems provide a command to display and/or change the current date. Should we create articles for the equivalent commands from VMS, MVS, VM/CMS, etc? SJK (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No need" and "not particularly interesting" are not valid arguments for deletion. The later argument is entirely subjective. Many of our articles contain sports statistics, and I am tempted to argue that anything is more interesting than that. James500 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the nominator's rationale is correct, the correct !vote would be "transwiki" (to wikiversity or wikibooks) not "delete". NOTMANUAL is not an argument for the elimination of any given content from all WMF projects. James500 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I am inclined towards keeping this article. What NOTMANUAL actually says is: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not" (my emphasis). This article does not consist entirely of instructions. Even if does contain instructions (and I am not sure it contains any), I don't see why they can't be rewritten as a description of how the command is used etc (WP:IMPERFECT). To put it another way, NOTMANUAL seems to be more about style than substance. James500 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously James500, you should have more concern about what such a frivolous verdict would do to your own reputation, because this kind of interpretation of WP:NOTMANUAL is only found in sitcoms for their comedy value. The section, along with the entire founding policy, has a purpose. In addition, I've read thousands of manuals so far and have created two myself (excluding all those /doc pages that I edit in template namespace). All looked exactly like this page. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that my reputation is perfectly secure. The word "manual" is exactly that: it is just a word that doesn't have any particularly precise signification in English. I am not prepared to entertain other users inventing their own definitions of that word out of their own heads, which is what you seem to be doing. According to the Compact OED, a manual is "a book giving instructions or information". The same dictionary defines an encyclopedia as "a book ... giving information ...". Clearly, according to that source, the only relevant difference is the presence of instructions. I am sure that you have read books that have the word "manual" printed on the cover, but their contents prove absolutely nothing because the title of a book is normally chosen by the publisher for commercial reasons (ie marketing reasons). It is not intended to be an accurate reflection of the nature of the book's contents, and cannot be assumed to say anything meaningful about the book's contents. Nor am I prepared to rely on your memory of what these publications contain. And of course you have, at most, only read a small subset of all the books calling themselves manuals. The last thing that we want to do is to start trying to inject meaning into vague, ambiguous, wishy-washy, airy-fairy, waffle words like "manual", because it is likely to produce absurd results. O Hood Phillips, for example, defined "textbooks" as "books other than statutes and law reports" (which would include encyclopedias). And by your logic, the ODNB is a "dictionary" for the purpose of our policy. Nor am I prepared to entertain assertions about the alleged purpose of our policies that are not supported evidence, which you have not produced. And even if I accepted your opinions about the meaning of the word "manual" (which I don't), you still haven't explained why the article can't be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner which would be the preferred solution per WP:IMPERFECT. James500 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you don't like WP:MANUAL then see WP:NOTHOWTO. Everything outside of the lede is how-to, and the lede should be dispersed to the various OS-specific lists of commands. Jeh (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to Wikibook, or sell to Microsoft because it is one hell of a documentation. Fleet Command (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Unfortunately, the nom can nominate faster than I can locate sources and rewrite articles. At this point, I'm just going to start marking these as keep and will fill in the cites as time allows. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom's objection appears to be with the content of the article, not the topic. The lead does not appear to offend WP:NOTMANUAL. How about we delete most of the body of the article and call it a day? ~KvnG 23:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng:: Or how about merging the lead into List of DOS commands and deleting this one? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but it should be a redirect not a delete and can be worked out on article talk pages, not at AfD. ~KvnG 13:21, 18 September 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) 22:34, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. The lede isn't really like a manual. Computers and operating systems are really important and so major commands (in several OS's I gather) are worth describing, I guess. The rest of the article is kind of manual-like, there's not a lot to say about it I guess, and I suppose that making a long article describing these commands might be called for is someone wants to do that. Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The test at AfD is WP:Notability, which requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the subject. To be secondary, the source must off the author's own opinions or analysis. It can't just be a summary of the command line options lifted from the man page. Realistically, there are no such qualifying sources. Occasionally, we will allow articles where the sourcing is weak but where there's a consensus a separate article is warranted for other reasons. For example, we have an article on command substitution that survived AfD but that was because there was a consensus it's important construct that appears in many shells and the best way to deal with it would be with a separate article explaining the concept and where it first appeared. I find no similar rationale available here. Nom is correct: Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMANUAL. Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have a look at what User:Lesser Cartographies has done to address WP:NOTAMANUAL in PRINT (command). ~KvnG 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete (see comments below) - but broaden to cover all related "date" commands (e.g. by merging Date_(Unix) here). @Msnicki: a secondary source does not require an author's opinions or analysis unless you're broadening "analysis" to mean an alternative explanation (alternative to a help file/man page). It would be difficult to base a number of technical, scientific, mathematics, etc. articles entirely on opinions or analysis rather than authoritative and informed explanation and description. It took me a few seconds to find this article, for example, which explains "date" in its own section of a paper using an analogy to a stopwatch, etc. @SJK: the detailed notability, etc. policies and guidelines are intended to take the place of generalized judgments of what there's a "need" for or what we decide is or is not "interesting". Plenty of things that are interesting aren't notable and plenty of things that are notable aren't interesting. The question here is whether there exist (read: doesn't matter if they're currently included) sufficient reliable sources out there. @Codename Lisa: The article does not appear to me to be only a man page, even if a large part of it appears that way, so that doesn't seem like a reason for deletion on its own. It does look like substantial parts here could be chopped, turned into prose, and adding sources would certainly help it to be less manual-like. I'm confident there are enough sources out there to justify an article on operating system date commands (one for each OS, I'm less confident). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Rhododentrites, you're wrong about what's required to make a source secondary. From WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Simply reciting the command line options from the man page does make for a secondary source. It must also include the author's own thinking. Period. It's there in our guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're largely agreeing with me except where I'm misrepresented. You said it requires "opinions or analysis." On the other hand that quote includes "thinking based on primary sources," "interpretation," "evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas," and so on. Furthermore, your particular reading of "author's own thinking" removes from the definition of "secondary source" all reporting, for example. If the AP reports a story saying "Today the President announced that the United States would donate $50million in aid to fight ebola in Liberia. This is the second aid package to Liberia this year. So far ebola has claimed the lives of x number of people..." that would fail your secondary source test. Nowhere in my response did I advocate "reciting the command line options" -- that's just restating the initial argument. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up, for clarity, because this doesn't seem like something that has to hinge on the particularities of a Wikipedia policy: A secondary source is a source based on material originally presented elsewhere. If I just reprint or reword the original, that's one thing, but if I explain the original in a different way, if I summarize or generalize, if I add context or juxtapose it with other relevant material, or if I otherwise give any other take on the original, I'm publishing a secondary source. There's no requirement it have a certain kind of analysis or opinion. President gives a speech: primary. Someone else summarizing, generalizing, contextualizing, analyzing, judging, etc. that speech: secondary. Owner's manual: primary. Someone else explaining, summarizing, etc. an aspect of an owner's manual: secondary. There are separate arguments about what's reliable or appropriate but secondary isn't the question. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep and broaden" is not the answer to "WP:NOTMANUAL". By keeping and broaden, one can only make a more comprehensive manual. Date (Unix) is now deleted for the same reason. Also, it is very illogical to keep a 59 KB article because 235 bytes of it don't violate the policy. Those 235 bytes can move to List of DOS commands. (Already there.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Which is why I said The article does not appear to me to be only a man page, even if a large part of it appears that way, so that doesn't seem like a reason for deletion on its own. It does look like substantial parts here could be chopped, turned into prose, and adding sources would certainly help it to be less manual-like. To argue that the existence of reliable secondary sources, notability, and importance of a subject don't matter at all because of the current non-copyvio content of an article is always a very difficult case to make and my inclination is to say there's not a good enough WP:NOTMANUAL case to be made here (the rest of my comments addressed the notability question implied in almost every AfD). The number of good/bad bytes is also not a good reason to delete if there are sources which can be used to broaden it (i.e. the existence of those sources is enough). I have, however, changed my !vote to a weak keep upon closer inspection of the what the system time article has to offer (which is, I think, a better redirect target than some list of commands should this end in a redirect). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are trying to put up a argumentum ad absurdum or not, but this article is a man page. Regardless of whether it is only a man page or not, the only cure for its state is to blow it up and start over. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so first I have some ultimately inconsequential procedural concerns: If an article is not only a man page, then the article is not a man page. If an article contains manual-like content, it should be fixed, not deleted. If there's any hope for content to be reworked, removed, better sourced, etc. blowing it up isn't the way to go. Blowing it up is most often applied, in my experience, when the content hurts Wikipedia -- as with copyright violations and advertising, for example -- not when the article needs an overhaul. That's what tags are for. Also, I don't know where the argumentum ad absurdum you're talking about is.

All that being said, I'm changing my vote to delete :)

I spent a little while trying to rework the article, using existing content and the sources I could find. Well, I did not succeed. The more I looked at what was important and interesting about date commands, the more I realized system time covers it better. It's likely notable per WP:GNG, but while I don't agree with WP:NOTMANUAL as a sole reason for deletion here, that it relies on so much manual-like content is indeed a symptom of there just not being enough to talk about to merit a stand-alone article. !Vote changed. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrite's conclusion above. This article flies in the face of WP:NOTHOWTO; removal of the "man page" content would leave it with next to nothing. Look at our article on Car. That is an encyclopedia article. It describes the history of the invention, the economic and social impact of cars, etc. There might even be a discussion of how cars' controls evolved, from tillers to steering wheels, from the Model T's setup to the modern pedals-and-shifter, etc. But nowhere does it explain how to drive a car, nor should it. There is related history here (older computers had no built-in clock and their system time had to be set on every boot; still older ones didn't keep time or even date at all; these days we can set our computers' time via NTP or a GPS receiver, but some computers' timekeeping is notoriously inaccurate; etc.) but the place for it isn't in a description of the "date" command. Jeh (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or *Merge to List of DOS commands I am torn between the two options. Many similar command line instructions are part of List of DOS commands. However the content of this article is more extensive than most of those other commands. So we need to make a value judgement, is the size of this content enough to justify a separate article? It looks to me like it is. This much content in the otherwise list of short subjects would be a distraction, however there is some debate above as to the validity of that content. So based on the fact that there is that much content already, we must assume that even if the questioned content were removed, if the article had that much content once, it could easily get expanded back to an unmanageable size and should stand alone. So I vote Keep. Trackinfo (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale does not address WP:NOTHOWTO. "There's a lot of stuff here" is not justification for keeping an article. Nor is "it could just get expanded again, might as well keep it". Jeh (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to list of DOS commands. I don't see how this does not go against WP:NOTMANUAL: it contains a one-line description that does not establish the topic as notable, followed by a lot of how-to information that does not establish (with references) why anyone should care about how to use this command in the ways described. Trimming off the manual part leaves no stand-alone article. If the command is interesting/notable, then it can be rewritten at any time. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DOS commands or delete. While it's true that Lesser Cartographies has done much work to improve these articles, I'm still not convinced that independent articles on each individual DOS command is a good idea. Some of them are easily notable, some of them are of debatable notability, and some simply can not be written in any format beyond a how-to guide. Timekeeping on computers may very well be a notable and scholarly topic, but individual time-keeping commands? I don't really see how this can be compliant with our policies. If people really want to keep a detailed history of individual DOS or UNIX commands, I would suggest a wiki at Wikia, where issues of notability and WP:NOTMANUAL are no longer an issue. Note: I was invited to this discussion by Codename Lisa. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiBooks: having a WikiBook about DOS shell usage would be benefitial for that project. I see nothing in current text of DATE (command) that would serve a basis for an encyclopedic article in future, so "keep" and "merge" rationales are ruled out. List of DOS commands has nothing to say about DATE, so redirect to this list is impossible per WP:R#DELETE. FWIW the best solution would be to merge this article into list of DOS commands and transwiki the result (the list suffers from the problem as much), but this decision is out of this discussion's scope. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be an entirely acceptable solution, but the last time I saw a transwiki result was... never? I guess we could raise this issue on Talk:List of DOS commands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of DOS commands, as much as that is not a great article. User:Msnicki makes a good argument on why this is not appropriate as a standalone article and I agree with it entirely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Msnicki's argument. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTMANUAL, together with merging some parts into List of DOS commands and moving the rest to Wikiversity. By the way, why do we have List of DOS commands article at all? It's a clear example of what a brief manual looks like, and it should also be moved to Wikiversity, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:52, 3 October 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 to Lists of case law#Australia, per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Supreme Court cases

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

There is no "Australian Supreme Court", so the article doesn't really make sense by definition; it tries, completely fails, and is at the wrong title anyway, to be a list of state supreme court decisions. The result is an almost-empty list which will permanently stay that way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete even if it could be populated it would be just a directory of cases as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is not applicable. James500 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, while there's no federal supreme court, the article seems to be concentrating on cases by the various state-based supreme courts. I agree that the article is poorly titled, but it does make sense to me to keep a list of notable cases in one place, rather than balkanising everything out into various state and territory lists. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil. The article is clear about what "Supreme Court" means, and many of the cases which reach such courts will be notable. Pburka (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now with no prejudice against creating state-based pages with reasonable content. There is no reason to conflate the cases seen by eight entirely separate judicial bodies, and as it stands this list is pretty useless, but there could conceivably be enough information on state cases with a little research. Frickeg (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an outcome that as the nominator I'd support, for what it's worth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly should not be deleted as it will certainly satisy LISTN due to professionally published case digests, citators, indexes and so forth, and the fact that the cases of these kind of appellate courts are typically individually and collectively notable. Perhaps it should be moved to List of Australian court cases (or perhaps that should be "lists" plural) and reworked accordingly (which just means adding subheadings for the High Court and the supreme courts). Separate lists for the various courts can then be spun out when the need arises. At this time, no one has advanced a valid rationale for deletion. James500 (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I should emphasise that what I have in mind is a select list of cases). James500 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list was started in 2007 with the edit summary "It's a start. EVERYONE, please keep adding cases to the list - even if not yet written". That was it. No more cases were added to the list. Surprised? Of course not. This, in my view, does fail WP:LISTN because of the lack of sources considering the "group" -- cases heard in Australian Supreme Courts -- in detail. There is no "group". There is no intersection between Australian Supreme Courts. Each Supreme Court has their own case reporters and citations. There is not even a common thread: in each State the Supreme Court takes on a different scope and shape. What might go to the Supreme Court in one State will go to the District Court in another. So, yes, there may be an argument for a list of notable Supreme Court cases of individual States. But not for the Australian supreme courts as a whole. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can ruin that argument in minutes just by moving the page and changing the lead. James500 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have moved the article to the location that I proposed earlier and reworked it. James500 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the job is not done. Federal Court? Family Court? Industrial courts? Privy Council? There is nothing that brings the cases from these disparate courts together, as a notable group. Instead we have a ludicrously unmanageable list with literally tens of thousands of potential entries. Mkativerata (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any work that deals with the doctrine of precedent is discussing court cases collectively as a group. Digests and other like works tend to include the decisions of all courts that have precedent value. This is a select list, so we can omit cases. There is nothing disparate about these courts. They are all Australian. They are all part of the same legal system. That is a perfectly natural grouping and it is the one that appears in the literature. You are asking me to believe that there are no works discussing Australian law as a whole, or that they don't possess chapters on case law. There is nothing "unmanageable" (whatever that really means) about this list. We already have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries and "lists of lists" whose scope is much broader than what is proposed here. Indeed we have a list of lists of case law. This is not a problem, we are NOTPAPER. In all fairness, the arguments that you are advancing seem to be completely devoid of merit. James500 (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The worst case scenario for this list is to spin off stand alone lists for the Supreme Courts of Tasmania and Victoria respectively (which already have entries) and redirect List of Australian court cases and the old page name to Lists of case law#Australia with selective merge to include links to the two new lists. That would be a tolerable solution. Outright deletion is out of the question: it has WP:SNOW chance of happening. James500 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with this, and I don't see how it's the "worst case" scenario - it creates lists of subject matter that actually have a common basis (lists of decisions of a specific court), removes the grand mashing together of tons of courts, and redirects this article to an existing article where people can find the content that was poorly organised here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done for presentational reasons only and without prejudice to the future expansion of the redirects. I found at least one digest that does treat the supreme courts as a single unit. James500 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Australian court cases clearly satisfy LISTN. It will not be difficult to come up with reasonable selection criteria. Perhaps all reported or digested cases? (The last time I checked they only get reported if they are considered to be of sufficient general interest). There is nothing wrong with this list that can't be fixed by editing. James500 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is arguing that lists of Australian court cases don't belong in Wikipedia - just that a mashing together of a whole bunch of courts and thousands of cases isn't a useful solution. This article needs to be gotten rid of. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my reply immediately above. James500 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to participants and closer: the article has been moved around a lot; the history is now at List of Australian court cases (currently also a redirect). Ansh666 04:50, 14 September 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) 22:41, 15 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a technical close. The page in question is now a redirect, so AfD is no longer the appropriate venue to discuss its deletion. If anyone wishes to renominate it, the right place would now be WP:RFD. Pburka (talk) 00:33, 22 September 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 Miz Ima Starr. Without prejudice to questions as to the surviving title. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bracewell

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

Filmmaker who really has no films that are notable Wgolf (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find enough on NZ news sites to make notability - just an occasional mention NealeFamily (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Merge as below NealeFamily (talk) 02:11, 30 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but Merge with Ima Starr. They are the same person, so I don't think they need to have two pages. I had heard of Bracewell but only because I'd heard of Ima Starr.CoronaryKea (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Marshall Mulreed Fairley

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

Blatant autobio. Is the guy actually notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, the page should be deleted. I just searched up John Marshall Mulreed Fairley and the dude is some normal guy and NO he is not notable. He’s just some plain dude. Check on the internet for those who don’t concur. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 23:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Did this guy really even work with all of these companies? Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. He did do some I must admit but he's not famous. He's not significant.--Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 02:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His twitter feed can't really help to establish notability. I agree that it looks like this just some guy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 20 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be quite a few references in Google, but nothing that comes close to WP:RS. And that's assuming Google didn't fill the search results with "suggested" articles for people with related names. This one could probably be speedy. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Levine (author)

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

Inadequate evidence of meeting general notability guidelines for biographies. Inadequately sourced for BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment based solely on the existing sources - delete. there are only two citations, one of which is a press release and therefore of no value in establishing notability. however his Address Book - How to Reach Anyone seems to have been a pretty standard go-to for the press looking for some filler. Not quite "reviews " so I am not ready to say "keep" , but there seems like there might be something so I am not going to formally say "delete" yet. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are we judging this on the sources within the article or how we should be by using the available sources? This one clearly meets notability with a simple Google search [52], [53]. Didn't waste my time looking for other sources as these two pretty much sum up what you will find. Wikipedia Article needs some MAJOR help but clearly notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Posts blogs are notoriously difficult to assess. This one looks to me like a blogger wishing a personal friend a happy birthday and blabbing about his birthday party, the other is a WP:PRIMARY interview where he promotes his books to a website (part of Purch) which give no indication of editorial oversight or importance. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been keeping an eye on this article for a while, and the only WP:RS I could find was something about him putting his foot in his mouth about Michael Jackson after he died. Searching for reviews for his (supposedly seminal) book Guerrilla PR 2.0 I've found nothing but WP:SPS and vapor. The fact that he's a publicist who's also written some 'light' news articles himself is making searching very tedious and difficult, though, but I don't think there's enough out there. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage to establish notability. The sources in the article are both decidedly not RS, and no sources found to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have some concerns about the subject's notability given the lack of sources. If more could be established than what can be found so far, I would not be prejudiced against recreation, but for now the notability concern suggests deletion is best. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:42, 3 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edo Murić (filmmaker)

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

A filmmaker who has only done one film which was a unotable TV doc. (Now I don't see a problem if they are a director and if they have one credit ONLY if they actually have some backing up like nominated for a major award which this guy does not have) also I have been unable to find anything bout him online. Wgolf (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:45, 14 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:09, 22 September 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. WP:BIODELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 07:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anbin Geetham

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

This is just a page for a music video. (Don't know why it says film on here) No notability at all. Wgolf (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:07, 14 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability has been established here - just a video clip for a song.Dan arndt (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flickerball

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

Lacks notability and citations.

Interlaker (talk) 05:38, 14 September 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 September 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without any sources, it looks like a "made-up game" which would fail WP:OR. Also fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: Paul, a quick Google search shows that "flickerball" exists and is quite popular as a college intramural sport. That having been said, I'm still not sure what to do with this article because the overwhelming majority of sources I've seen so far are college intramural program webpages. This one is going to require some real analysis of the sources to determine whether it satisfies the general notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freaking WOW! Oh, and changed to keep I got zero hits in the news search, but it's loaded with non-traditional sources--West Point, Northern Arizona University, Salem (IL) High School, Sidney (MT) high schools, Eastern Illinois University, and Davidson College just to name a few. There are so many non-traditional sources across such a large geographic area that I can't help but be compelled to switch to Keep. --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds like this was made up in one day. Could be speedied under A11. Aerospeed (Talk) 02:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's what I thought at first too...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is a few notable sources, I think it comes across as a game that might be very popular in the future. However. we can't make predictions into the future, so my opinion stands as delete. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be... but it's more than just some game that someone thought up. Although at their roots, I guess all games start as something someone just thought up...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wasn't sure what do with this subject, because I am so used to analyzing the notability of a subject through the lens of the traditional media: published newspapers, magazines, books, journals, etc., and their online analogs. This subject presents an interesting case: virtually all of the sources yielded by a Google search are websites of high schools, school systems, colleges and universities (or their physical education department and/or intramural sports program) -- and a cursory Google search shows that there are a lot of them. One thing is certain: flickerball is a sport and it exists. As best I can make out, it was either invented at Davidson College or the U.S. Air Force Academy (they both claim it, and they both may have invented a version of it), and it is played predominantly as a sport within high school and college intramural programs. It has had a peculiar popularity within the U.S. Air Force, where flickerball tournaments are organized among serving officers and enlisted men, and pick-up games happen almost spontaneously among off-duty personnel. All of that is by way of background. What I was able to find in the way of traditional sources were a newspaper article, a magazine article, and a book: Schenectady Gazette (1971); Parade (10/16/1955); and A Comparative Evaluation of Flicker Ball and Touch Football . . (1953). All appear to be "significant" coverage per the general notability requirements of WP:GNG. Given the popularity of flickerball as an intramural sport, I strongly suspect there are probably other significant hard-copy sources, including rules books and physical education text books, that cover the sport as well. That is, however, an educated guess. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources turned up by Dirtlawyer1 and Paul McDonald (though the Parade article is behind a paywall) seem to be sufficient to establish notability. It's to be hoped that someone will use those sources to improve and reference the article. (I think that rather than being "a game that might be very popular in the future", this is likely to be a game—or family of similar games—that was more popular in the past, which may account for the paucity of third-party sources online.) Deor (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor: Having read the various online sources, I think I can safely say that flickerball is never going to be a widespread varsity sport at North American high school and universities, nor does it have any real potential to become a professional spectator sport. It was designed to be played in physical education classes or college intramural leagues; there is no substantial physical contact, no equipment is required except a ball (unlike American football, which is hugely expensive to equip a team), and can even be played on a co-ed basis. I think it stays in that PE/intramurals niche, and will continue to be popular among certain organizations like the USAF for similar reasons. That having been said, I think it rises to the level of notability per GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jubair Bin Iqbal

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

Autobiographical article about an amateur photographer. No signs of any notability, the claimed awards do not seem to be at all major. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May qualify WP:CSD#A7. It is clearly self-promoting article. There we can find thousands of photographers like Jubair in Bangladesh, each having own some I don't know what it means kind of award and many of them feel fake "celebrity" status! None of them are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. – nafSadh did say 16:26, 14 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and per nafSadh . Not clear why this particular photographer is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 22 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N-v-t distinction

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

Page describes a non-notable theory – really just a minor tweak to T–V distinction. The article cites only primary sources, the paper in which the term was coined and two English translations of that work. Further, I could find only one paper not written by M. Cook which refers to that work. Fails WP:GNG. Cnilep (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Linguistics-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:19, 14 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:06, 22 September 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.