Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 September	24 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In-Place Count Sort

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

Utter bunk; probably a hoax. The "sorting algorithm" presented here is just an obfuscated way of doing

for i from 0 to n:
 a[i] = i

No wonder there are no references. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I found one unverifiable cite in google books and no hits in google scholar. Ghits are also sparse. Not enough WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources.-- danntm ^T _C 20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be intended as an algorithm for in-place permutation, a problem with some history of actual research behind it (see [1]). But I don't think there's anything worth saving in the current article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose that it could be used as a simple example in In-place algorithm. I don't believe there are any research articles on it because it is of no practical or theoretical value. int i must equal the minimum integer in a sequence and the sequence must contain all of the integers between the minimum and maximum integers in a sequence with no repeats, otherwise the algorithm enters an infinite loop or an array out of bounds. I am One of Many (talk) 05:49, 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Sturgis

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of all the sources in the article, the interview is the only one that writes so much as a single sentence about Sturgis. The article was prodded for these reasons, the prod was removed by User:Joeyismusic without improvement. Huon (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A single interview does not establish notability, and is a primary source. I see no fully independent coverage in reliable sources. Producing recordings by notable performers does not, in itself, confer notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep, based on the best of the sources brought forward in this debate. Thanks to those who have done so. No one needs to insult me to get me to change my recommendation. Just show me the sources. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey is a worldwide known producer and this page is incredibly educational to many, it's a great source for people wanting to find previous work of Joeys, it is also a 100% accurate source which is great for students of music wishing to do assignments/reports on him, if you do not believe he is notable then maybe you should check this http://www.allmusic.com/artist/joey-sturgis-mn0000938432/credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.193.149 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Notability is doing something significant and therefore affects other people. He has worked with people to help there music which in turn is listened to by thousands of people. The simple factor of googling a name and having actual photos and information confirms popularity or knowledge about that one person or thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.231.8 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some news articles: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep14/articles/joey-sturgis.htm http://geargods.net/features/interview-joey-sturgis/ http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/blessthefall_recording_new_album_with_joey_sturgis http://www.revolvermag.com/?s=joey+sturgis&x=0&y=0 http://www.underthegunreview.net/2014/03/11/utg-exclusive-producer-joey-sturgis-picks-his-10-favorite-projects/ http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3290723/joey-sturgis-mind-behind-music-interview/ http://www.absolutepunk.net/journal.php?do=showentry&e=353812 http://mindequalsblown.net/interviews/interview-joey-sturgis http://blog.haulix.com/post/76985145531/industry-spotlight-joey-sturgis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyismusic (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new Sound On Sound article[2] and the earlier Vents magazine article[3] combine to satisfy WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey is the reason countless bands have been successful. You have to be just picking on him because you got butthurt if you think he isn't notable. He's the biggest name producer in the modern metal scene.

Joey Sturgis is arguably one of the most successful, prolific and influential producers in metal music. By definition, notability is "A person of distinction or great reputation" as stated here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/notable By that logic, someone who has had a visible and prominent influence in the creation, development and evolution of one hugely popular genre of music in the last five years is inarguably notable. His credentials include Asking Alexandria, Attack Attack, The Devil Wears Prada, Emmure and We Came As Romans among others; all of which are established and hugely popular acts. For clarification of this statement, please refer to each band's respective Wiki pages, Facebook pages or simply Google them. Without him, these bands would arguably have had a largely different sound (due to his involvement in the writing, producing, recording and mixing of their albums) and as such, we can conclude that metal music would have an indescribably different landscape. Joey's work is integral to the success of these artists and the defining of an entire niche of modern music, and to argue that this does not quantify notability seems biased.

Joey will be appearing on Creative Live as seen here: https://www.creativelive.com/conferences/mastering-metal-mixing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.5.173 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For more info on Joey Sturgis...

Gold Record Mentions:

http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-asking-alexandria-the-final-episode/

http://gigzealot.com/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://musicexistence.com/blog/2014/04/29/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://uglyscene.com/2014/04/30/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://ventsmagazine.com/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://altrocklive.com/blog/2014/04/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://ignitemusicmag.com/2014/04/28/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://pluggedinpromotions.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://fifteenminutemedia.tumblr.com/page/2

http://www.arfadia.com/blog/view/84965530971/Joey+Sturgis+Receives+Gold+Record+for+work+with+Asking+Alexandria

http://www.rockstarsglued.com/2014/04/28/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

Interviews:

http://geargods.net/features/interview-joey-sturgis/

http://thewellzstreetjournal.com/2013/11/20/interview-with-joey-sturgis-producer-at-foundation-recording-studios/

http://mindequalsblown.net/interviews/interview-joey-sturgis

http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3290723/joey-sturgis-mind-behind-music-interview/

http://www.absolutepunk.net/journal.php?do=showentry&e=353812

http://www.underthegunreview.net/2014/03/11/utg-exclusive-producer-joey-sturgis-picks-his-10-favorite-projects/

http://blog.haulix.com/post/76985145531/industry-spotlight-joey-sturgis

http://audiogeekzine.com/2010/07/exclusive-interview-with-music-producer-joey-sturgis/

http://www.killthemusic.net/blog/interview-joey-sturgis

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Joey-Sturgis/1566411725

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/11345208/joey_sturgis_interview/

http://thepit-se.com/2014/02/12/backstage-pass-joey-sturgis/

http://getinmedia.com/articles/music-careers/joey-sturgis-producing-heavy-metal-box

Articles on Joey:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep14/articles/joey-sturgis.htm

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/crown_the_empire_enter_the_studio_with_joey_sturgis - has a mention posted from Rise Records

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep14/articles/joey-sturgis.htm

Here are a few of his products he has released and where they have been mentioned.

Pixelator:

http://newnoisemagazine.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-audio-processor/

http://ventsmagazine.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-new-audio-processor/

http://www.caesarlivenloud.com/2014/07/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-new.html

http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/producer-joey-sturgis-releases-brand-new-audio-processor-pixelator/

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/938543-joey-sturgis-pixelator-plugin.html

http://en.audiofanzine.com/plugin-lo-fi/jst/pixelator/news/a.play,n.18481.html

http://www.magesy.xyz/55000-joey-sturgis-tones-pixelator-v1.0.3-win.html

http://www.kvraudio.com/news/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator---audio-resolution-manipulator-for-sound-design-and-destruction-26538

http://rekkerd.org/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-plugin/

http://makehiphop.com/2014/07/02/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-audio-resolution-manipulator-for-sound-design-and-destruction/

http://audiok.info/joey-sturgis-tones-pixelator-v103-vst-x86-x64-win

http://www.moinf.info/news/joey-sturgis-pixelator-29-06-14

http://beta.producerlabs.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-plugin

http://smashyorecords.co.uk/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-audio-resolution-manipulator-for-sound-design-and-destruction/

http://en.zicos.com/proaudio/i29847319-Joey-Sturgis-Pixelator-Plugin.html

http://www.harmonycentral.com/news/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-new-audio-processor

http://synthwise.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-audio-resolution-manipulator-sound-design-and-destruction/2014/07/02

Clip:

http://www.emusician.com/gear/1332/joey-sturgis-releases-jst-clip/46197

http://www.kvraudio.com/news/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-jst-clip-peak-clipper-plug-in-25677

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2014/04/16/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-jst-clip-plugin-peak-clipper-for-mixing-mastering/

http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/165520-gear-joey-sturgis-releases-peak-clipper-jst.html

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2014/04/18/peak-clipper-plug-in/

http://www.steppingoutrecords.com/news/music-blog/entry/gear-joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper-jst-clip-plug-in

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/920620-joey-sturgis-tones-releases-jst-clip.html

http://rekkerd.org/joey-sturgis-tones-jst-clip-clipper/

http://newnoisemagazine.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-audio-processor/

http://www.caesarlivenloud.com/2014/04/joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper.html

http://en.zicos.com/proaudio/i29766974-Joey-Sturgis-Tones-releases-JST-Clip-Peak-Clipper-Plug-In.html

http://www.moinf.info/news/joey-sturgis-clip-08-04-14

http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3290723/joey-sturgis-mind-behind-music-interview/

http://smashyorecords.blogspot.com/2014/04/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-clip-peak.html

http://www.1200dreams.com/news/208/joey-sturgis-introduces-jst-clip

http://www.gearjunkies.com/news_info.php?news_id=9326

http://pluggedinpromotions.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper-jst-clip-plug-in/

http://ampsandgreenscreens.tumblr.com/post/83163696751/joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper-jst-clip

http://www.rockstarsglued.com/2014/04/18/joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper-jst-clip-plug-in/

http://www.alt-uk.net/2014/04/14/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-jst-clip/

http://mixingmastering.co.uk/joey-sturgis-introduces-jst-clip-plugin/

Gain Reduction:

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2014/02/25/joey-sturgis-releases-signature-vocal-compressor-saturator-plugin-gain-reduction/

http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/joey_sturgis_releases_new_vocal_plug_in_guitar_giveaway

http://www.recordingmag.com/news/display/890.html

http://rekkerd.org/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-plugin/

http://amplified.tv/joey-sturgis-releases-new-plug-in/

http://www.moinf.info/news/joey-sturgis-gain-reduction-04-02-14

http://skopemag.com/2014/02/04/new-video-by-jst-gain-reduction

http://www.audio-desk.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://pluggedinpromotions.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://newnoisemagazine.com/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://geargods.net/review/review-joey-sturgis-tones-gain-reduction-plug/

http://www.alt-uk.net/2014/02/25/joey-sturgis-releases-gain-reduction-vocal-plugin/

http://bravewords.com/news/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor

http://www.bigcitythoughts.com/newsreviews/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor

http://www.gearjunkies.com/news_info.php?news_id=9090

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/903580-joey-sturgis-gain-reduction-plugin.html

http://www.harmonycentral.com/news/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-quotgain-reductionquot-vocal-compressor

http://reviewsfromthecave.com/4334/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/gain-reduction-plugin-promises-to-be-your-new-go-to-compressor-for-vocals-594254

Drumforge:

http://www.emusician.com/gear/1332/drumforge-modular-sample-library-available-now/47885

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=3698740

http://www.alt-uk.net/2014/05/05/joey-sturgis-drumforge-now-available-for-pre-order/

http://musicupdated.com/news/7239/joey-sturgis-to-release-%22drumforge%22-sample-library

http://www.rockstarsglued.com/2014/05/05/introducing-drumforge-a-revolution-in-drum-samples/

http://shuffler.fm/artists/drumforge

http://forum.studio.se/index.php/topic/106310-drumforge-joey-sturgis-egna-trumplug/

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/introducing_drumforge_a_revolution_in_drum_samples

http://www.toddstarphotography.com/blog/2014/6/news-drumforge-modular-sample-library-available-now

http://en.zicos.com/proaudio/i29842528-Introducing-Drumforge.html

http://ignitemusicmag.com/2014/06/30/drumforge-modular-sample-library-available-now-features-over-50-unique-drum-instruments/

http://www.arfadia.com/blog/view/86468252155/Making+Sure+Our+Stereo+Spread+Is+Wide+Drumforge

http://www.keyboardmag.com/gear/1183/drumforge-sample-library-available-now/31088

http://newnoisemagazine.com/drumforge-modular-sample-library-now-features-50-unique-drum-instruments/

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/937839-introducing-drumforge.html

http://ventsmagazine.com/drumforge-modular-sample-library-available-now-features-over-50-unique-drum-instruments/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Mohrhauser (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Far better to add the highest quality of the sources, like that Sound on Sound piece, to the actual article than listing dozens of them here as bare URLs, Rick Mohrhauser. Please read WP:CITATION OVERKILL and WP:TLDR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newfound sources.-- danntm ^T _C 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Highest Quality" sources are always going to be debateable unless Wiki puts out a list of publications it considers to be highest quality. You must admit that it is really annoying to attack a page for not having enough sources, and then when more sources are provided in its defense you are requesting "only the highest quality" sources. What happens when the highest quality sources are given, will you have some other complaint about how there are too many or the highest quality sources aren't valid or they are out of date or they're not in the right format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.5.173 (talk) 01:33, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vayle

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

Not a notable author in that he wrote a hagiography of William M. Branham. There are no secondary sources on the page and none that I could find. There is no talk page for the article. Taxee (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Notability cannot be bestowed or derived from an association with a notable individual until that person claiming to be “Notable” is noteworthy in their own right. As such, in researching Mr. Vayle there is little or virtually no coverage to establish notability on their own merits. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent referencing. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 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 Redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel Matiz discography

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

A page that could easily just be redirected to the singer-given the fact that there are not alot of songs on here. Wgolf (talk) 22:19, 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 00:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arben Biba

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

A obscure actor who is too soon if ever The only thing that links to him is Stinë Dashurie which only links to him (not sure how notable that is either!) Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 23:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 23:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 29 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 10:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of meeting the WP:GNG. I searched for references to WP:RS to establish its notbility but futile. He his not just notable. I think this is WP:TOOSOON and WP:NYA. Wikicology (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-the page Stinë Dashurie might need a AFD also. Wgolf (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Let me conduct a research on it.Wikicology (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only major character role is in the apparently popular Albanian tv show Stinë Dashurie but the only interview with him that I've found is only one paragraph long in an article about the show (see here). Other roles are mainly in student films, shorts, a few minor roles in tv series, a few commercials and some stage plays and musicals, all for a German language audience (see here). No interviews with him or reviews of him in German either. - Takeaway (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : As above Moudul hasan (talk) 12:48, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein (2nd nomination)

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

Notability has not been established. None of the references do that. Up and in (talk) 21:40, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a place that has a place in South African folklore. This is definitely not something for Wiktionary as suggested by some in the previous Afd. The place verifiably exists and there are some sources. The article needs more sources especially ones detailing its place in folklore, but that is not a reason to delete. I found several places where it was used in advertising, and elsewhere, to be a stand-in for a very rural location, i.e. "the middle of nowhere", but no academic discussion of this phenomenon. But I did find this sentence in the October 2014 Hartebeest Conservation Newsletter Like Pofadder, the farm has become a bit of a legend in Afrikaans folklore and is often used to depict typical farm culture in South Africa. --Bejnar (talk) 04:12, 27 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 10:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a place and name that has cultural relevance in South Africa. The same arguments were made in the previous AfD discussion. According to traffic stats it sees about 1k views per month, so certainly not nothing. dewet|✉ 11:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical use. long-words trivia too. national folklore status. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User Dewet. The place and it's name is a feature of South African folklore and popular culture. The name is also used in grammar textbooks to illustrate the agglutinative nature of Afrikaans. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:05, 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 Keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw

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

An isolated event from old newspapers, with no historical, legal, or otherwise consequences, and no modern attention. Shall we start digging old newspapers and will wikipedia with oldtime news without discrimination? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Clearly, those in 1876 believed this horrific event to be notable, for there to be so much coverage of it (8 references listed, so far, including Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia newspapers, which qualifies as national coverage). While lynchings were widespread, they were far from normal, since their crimes shocks the conscience, just as ISIS did with their beheadings. Lynchings are a stain on the moral superiority of the KKK, and other racist groups in America. By slaying extrajudicially, with mob justice, the Klan turned what could have been tried in a court of law, into another crime of passionate racial hatred. Since lynchings are a special way for racist whites to murder, and with the many other sources separate from the subject material, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", this makes this article suitable for a stand-alone article, and therefore, should be kept.WG:GNG Sarahrosemc (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentioned in the 1990 book Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940: Lynchings, Mob Rule, and "Legal Lynchings" (ISBN 9780807115367, published by LSU Press). But it is just barely that, a mention. These were horrible crimes, but I simply don't see any evidence that individual lynchings meet notability standards absent wider attention or legal, social, or historical impacts. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Horrible as this sounds, lynchings were very common in that commonwealth back in the late 1800s. I don't see how this one was notable, except that a husband and wife were victims. Weak delete. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Wright (in the book I mentioned above) found this worth mentioning only because it was a lynching of blacks in retribution for the murder of another black (where the majority of lynchings were ostensibly predicated by crimes against whites). But even then, he didn't consider this a unique situation, and gave it merely a passing mention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NTEMP, people: once notable, forever notable. This was discussed in sources in the 1800s, and as such it meets WP:GNG. The event has been discussed by XX century sources, which shows WP:PERSISTENCE. That there were other similar events is irrelevant for notability. Notable does not mean unique.--cyclopia^speak! 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. So often now I see this reasoning that "notable" equals "uncommon" or "exceptional". But perfectly ordinary things can be quite notable, if people have considered them important—worthy of note, notable. And very unusual things can be non-notable, if no one cares about them. Everyking (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning of Cyclopia. And actually lynching were not that normal, at least according to one history I read some years ago. One major object of an encyclopedia is to be able to look something up when one finds a bare mention of it is a book or other document. Using Squeamish Ossifrage's theory we would have very few modern music articles. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not, however, the standard by which we judge notability and inclusion. Bare mentions are not "significant coverage" in the sense of WP:N. The 1876 coverage is problematic as concerns WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS. It is absolutely true, as cyclopia observed, that notability does not expire; in Wikipedia's sense of the term, this event, while tragic, was never notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable then, notable now. Read what Cyclopia wrote. Everyking (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folllowing material copied from a very confusing AFD started on a cut and paste copy of this article at Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French. Dennis started the new AFD and I have added the "Delete" to the start of his nomination comment. Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nkyviews.com makes up the bulk of the sources, which is a self-published website owned and maintained by one person. The other cite, a book, is searchable on Google, and when I searched for the "fact" in the lead "best nigger in the country", I got nothing. The sourcing is so radically subpar, I can't see how we can publish this. I would also note that lynchings were (unfortunately) common and this hasn't differentiated itself as particularly unique, enough so to pass WP:CRIME. Dennis 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Within minutes Dennis suggested deleting two of my articles, which I worked for hours on. Hey Dennis, did you even read this article, before suggesting to delete it? Sarahrosemc (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, I read the source material, which is problematic. Using self-published websites to prove the lynching of someone is very, very problematic. Don't take it personal, I just ran across the articles on new article patrol. Some articles get improved, some get tagged, some get nominated for deletion. I don't know you, so it can't be personal. Dennis 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the sources link to the self-published website, that site purports to accurately reproduce contemporary reports from secondary sources (newspapers). While I would prefer to see scans (rather than transcriptions) of the papers, I note that the author could have easily cited these sources without linking to the transcriptions on nkyviews.com, as Wikipedia does not require that sources be on-line. I feel that the sourcing is adequate. Pburka (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He was, in the estimation of Warsaw whites, "the best nigger in the country." Page 98-99. George Wright's Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940. The sentence begins on the bottom right of page 98, and ends on the top left of page 99. It's there. That's one accusation down.

It's also notable because lynching is a very specific weapon used by racist whites against blacks. While there were bunches, it also wasn't as "common" as the above comments make you'd believe. Also, since it was happening in the Northern part of Kentucky, that suggests that racist vigilante justice was practiced all throughout the state. Being close to the Mason-Dixon line didn't wane the support of racial hatred, and may have in fact, intensified it. Sarahrosemc (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is that I looked at the book, and it wasn't there. Perhaps it is a different ISSN than what you listed, you didn't give the ISSN, but once it fails verification, the onus is on you to provide more information in the citation to it CAN be verified. It isn't enough to claim a cite, it has to be verifiable, via WP:V. Dennis 2¢ 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://books.google.com/books?id=QAL5c1vECVkC&pg=PA99#v=onepage&q&f=false. It's exactly where Sarahrosemc indicated. Pburka (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, consider speedy. Irrespective of the contents of the article, this is a direct fork of The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw (note the plural), which was listed at AFD on the 23rd. If the earlier-created article is deleted at AFD, this would be eligible for a G4 speedy; if not, it is a duplicate fork, and eligible for A10 speedy. Recreating articles is not the way to avoid concerns raised in the deletion process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since both articles were created by the same user, it's not a fork. It's just a newbie mistake. I suggest speedily redirecting this title to the other. (The correct title should probably be something like Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French.) Pburka (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Squeamish Ossifrage's delete was for the duplicate copy of the page, which is now just a redirect to this page. Pburka (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So... make a Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French, and have them link to both? I'll read on this, and compile them somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I made the Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French page, and had the others redirect to there. I kept the articles of deletion part at the top, and it directs to here. The article was poorly titled. Grammatically didn't seem right. It's better now. Sarahrosemc (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense that just because I wanted a better titled article, that I'm accused of some type of fraud... That's your mindset; not mine. Folks can vote against others for the most arbitrary of reasons, and I didn't want my article to be flunked out of existence just because of the title. I still believe Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French is a better title, and hope that we can change it, after this page passes, which I'm not sure if that can be done. I have a right to blank out my own page, and it wasn't to avoid this discussion, because I would welcome this discussion on the Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French page as well.

Also, this article passes WP:NOTTEMPORARY WP:CRIME WP:INDEPTH WP:LASTING. While not an infinite supply of sources, compared to today's events, for an 1800s event, there's many different newspapers that printed about this incident. The lasting effects of a lynching is clearly one that racist whites used to intimidate all Black folks, not just the ones being lynched. Lynchings are significant because, first of all it's a murder, and second, it's a murder weapon used by sick oppressors, to not only punish those who are killed, but to scare the entire Black population into submission, so they wouldn't look up into white people's eyes, whenever they walked down the street. Reconstruction would fail in 1875 with the compromise between the Tilden v. Hayes election. So Benjamin and Mollie French were murdered 4 years after the Freedman's Bureau was disbanded, and only 1 year after the Federal Troops stopped occupying the South. Once Reconstruction failed, America would continue in the Nadir Era of Race Relations up until the 1950s. Sarahrosemc (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)NorthAmerica1000 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hatting the procedural close for the other AfD, a bit out of context here

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural close Had the nomination been provided the time, more than 36 minutes, to have the research that would have prepared the community for a deletion discussion, it would reflect the edit comment in the first and only edit made before nomination, "changed title from Lynchings to Lynching", and rather than WP:BITE the new editor, would have provided to the new editor the technique for moving an article from one title to another. Since this article is already at AfD with the older "Lynchings" title, a 2nd AfD is confounding. Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of material copied from the second AFD (started on the cut and paste copy) Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Unscintillating's "procedural close" was for the second AFD, on the cut and pasted copy of the article, not for this AFD. Meters (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have procedurally closed the second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lynching of the Frenches of Warsaw. !Votes and comments from that discussion have been moved herein (diff1, diff2). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With multiple references this easily passes WP:GNG, and the mention in a book demonstrates its lasting significance. The fact that this well-researched article is up for deletion is troubling to me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability does not expire — I was sharing an interesting text with some friends recently which they enjoyed too. It was written by Cato the Elder over two thousand years ago. In any case, it seems easy to find more modern sources such as this and that. Andrew (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical. seems to have sources. U.S. civil rights history should be preserved since much of it was covered up --of course it will be hard to find dozens of sources for the less well-known events. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of the notability rules is so that editors aren't tempted to create articles about subjects that cannot be properly sourced. I don't agree with, "Once notable, always notable." But we should be building the encyclopedia up, not deleting well-sourced material. Claimsworth (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, of all things, WP:NOTNEWS (which is a way of articulating the persistence-of-coverage part of WP:EVENT). These sources are mostly from a couple of days after it happened; it gets a brief mention in the Wright source as an example of a broader principle. We could mention this in a broader article on lynching, which is basically what Wright does. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary. sourced well, easily passes GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 8 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Misdaq

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

Not a notable author. Writing a book on Afghan jokes translated into English will hardly bring notability. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several pieces of information in the article that I would regard as more serious assertions of notability than the one mentioned by the nominator. Having said that, they don't exactly give strong grounds for keeping the article - but there's always the possibility of systemic bias when considering articles like these and, while I can't read it at all, the (presumably) Pashto Wikipedia article looks rather more substantial. Can anyone around look at it and report back? PWilkinson (talk) 12:36, 27 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 10:09, 1 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 8 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 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1595 club

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

Article about a club that has no coverage, much less the significant independent coverage required by GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no independent sources found. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no coverage that would meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 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. without prejudice to a redirect following deletion targeted to Suicide in Australia j⚛e decker ^talk 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Suicide

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

Non-notable wrestler. No reliable sources (just FB and Twitter) and no claims that would show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No view on this article itself, but if deleted, recreate as redirect to Suicide in Australia. -- saberwyn 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unsourced BLP about a wrestler who's actual identity is unknown. No indication that this individual is a notable wrestler (or is notable for anything else, for that matter). Papaursa (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a redirect would be plausible to Suicide in Australia, but I would recommend a deletion first because the content is so much unrelated. There's not really anything here to back up notability of the individual that the article currently describes. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:37, 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. I'm also deleting the redirect to Professional wrestling in Australia, because Buddy Murphy is not actually discussed or mentioned (or even listed) anywhere in that article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Murphy

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

Unsourced BLP about an aspiring pro wrestler. No sources and no claims of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rigth now, he isn't notable --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced BLP about someone in training to be a professional wrestler. Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Fire

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

3-Page comic book article with no indication of notability. Not every comic ever written deserves a Wikipedia article, they have to have some notability. This is one that doesn't. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appropriate for a Star Wars wiki, but Wikipedia has no requirement to cover every comic. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A three page comic story doesn't really seem worthy of having a page unless there's significant coverage of it from other sources. As of now, the page has nothing indicating any notability. kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:09, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Gonzalez-Whyte

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

Non-notable Judge lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:02, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:16, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County judges are not automatically notable and this article lacks the coverage required to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:11, 26 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 10:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a county judge? non-notable, even with the OR speculative item, "thus becoming the first Colombian/American Judge by election in the State of Florida and likely the United States of America" --mighty weak claim to encyclopedia inclusion. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wondering where there is some rule saying county judges are not notable? That doesn't make sense -- some counties are highly populous, such as Miami-Dade, while others are rural, and will get less media coverage; still, it depends on what happens within the county, and whether the subject is notable. The WP:GNG applies, with sufficient sources, since she's a big deal in the Columbian-American community, although she does not get as much attention in the American press. The previous version of her article was too long and unsourced, but hopefully improved as per WP:HEYMANN. There is a substantive article about her here after her investiture, mention here, major article here, major article here, mention here, mention here, article here. Another thing: a public defender handling 4,000 cases -- that is substantial. Big reason to keep: she'll throw out parking tickets for Wikipedians who get ticketed in the Miami-Dade county area, so I've been told.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judges at this level are not inherently notable. Being of Colombian descent doesn't improve her notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, judges at this level are not inherently notable — higher level judges, such as a state or federal Supreme Court or a federal District Court, count under our subject-specific inclusion rules for judges, but judges at the county level live or die on WP:GNG. Secondly, her ethnic background doesn't make her more notable than she would be otherwise — if she were the first judge from any Latina background at all, I'd accept that for notability, but not just "the first Colombian-American" (as if whether she were Colombian or Venezuelan or Peruvian or Nicaraguan made an appreciable difference to her career prospects). Thirdly, this article as written is hardly more than a blurb which asserts her existence but offers no real substance to demonstrate why she should be considered worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. And finally, the volume of sourcing here isn't sufficient to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 7 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Frey

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

Not notable *Seen a Mike * 19:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet criteria in Notability for college athlete *Seen a Mike * 20:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While he doesn't pass WP:NCOLLATH, precedent is well-established that a college football player may have a stand-alone article if coverage passes WP:GNG. Frey was the starting quarterback at Ohio State from 1988 to 1990 and was the subject of widespread coverage in the mainstream media, more than sufficient to pass GNG. Examples include: this from Northwest Columbus News, this from ESPN.com. He also passes WP:NGRIDIRON as he played professional football in the original Arena Football League for the 1993 Cleveland Thunderbolts team. Cbl62 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an easy keep !vote per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG (see Cbl62's comments above for a small sample of the coverage of the subject's college career). To anyone familiar with American college football, this result was entirely predictable, even without doing any AfD-related homework. The subject was the three-year starting quarterback for the Ohio State Buckeyes football team of Ohio State University, which has been a perennial top-10 program for the last 70 years. Starting quarterbacks in high-profile programs like Ohio State's get a lot of ink even if they suck, and this guy was a pretty damn fine college QB. Next. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:Athlete as he played professionally int the Arena Football League.--Yankees10 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with all of the above arguments. One problem with Google searches is that they just don't go back very far. I did a search on HighBeam and hundreds of articles about him or mention him come up. I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 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. Secret ^account 19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roopesh Peethambaran

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

A director with only 1 film so far-and working on his 2nd. Too soon, maybe someday-but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I do think that a redirect to Theevram (the only film he has directed) might be a good idea also so the page does not go away when he has enough time to deserve his own page. Wgolf (talk) 15:24, 1 October 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 15:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete and redirect to Theevram. I found two reliable sources ([4], [5]), but the combined coverage is short of meeting WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be too soon as well as lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:13, 17 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 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Moravčík

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

After cleaning up the article I realized that there is no documented evidence to show he meets WP:KICK. In addition, the sources are just fight results.Mdtemp (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He seems to have a pretty impressive fight record, but nothing that appears to meet WP:KICK. The lack of significant independent coverage means he also doesn't meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 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 16:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Africa

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

Article was deleted in late March as well as being deleted earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Fighting Championship Africa. All of the sources data back to 2011 or 2012 so there's nothing new to show notability. The only exception is a press release from Fight Network, but that is certainly not independent.Mdtemp (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Briantw's comment of 2011: While each individual event doesn't carry the weight of significance, EFC Africa is holding its 11th event on 2011-11-10. This series of events is the largest in South Africa, and has grown to live coverage in a national cinema chain as well as two satellite television channels in the region. Now the largest in Africa. In both previous Afds the balamce was close on the company. --Bejnar (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that there's no independent evidence to show it's any more notable than it was at the last deletion discussion.Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think there's enough significant coverage to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unless some new additional sources are provided, there's nothing that indicates this promotion has gained notability since the previous two times it was deleted. Papaursa (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[6][7][8][9] are any of these credible? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed. They're not new sources or significant. I can't access the first source given, the second is a promotional release from EFC Africa in 2012 saying that ratings had doubled since 2011 (and this source was given in the previous discussion), the third is a one line mention in an article about cashing in on MMA in Canada where EFC is clearly described as minor "nth-tier fighting cards from promotions including Battlefield Fight League and Extreme Fighting Championship Africa", while the fourth is a 2011 article about a fighter who fights (or fought) for the EFC and the promotion gets a passing mention. None of these is post the last AfD and the most recent is the 2013 business article describing the EFC as n-th tier. It hardly makes a strong case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Still not enough to show it's a notable MMA organization.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable bush leauge promotion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:23, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7 Angels 7 Plagues

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

I could find nothing to support that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some weasel words have been included. I don't believe it's notable and there are no references to back any of the claims up. st170e^talk 16:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable band spam. defunct no-hit band from racine. no reliable sources. not newsworthy or encyclopedia-worthy. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:41, 7 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 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Presti

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

Non-notable kickboxer. No evidence to show he meets WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:KICK. All three sources in the article appear to be just routine results reporting, although I couldn't access the 2 Russian ones and am basing my comments on the article titles. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novelist (rapper)

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

A rapper that falls under too soon, only link on here goes to the page novelist as well. No need for a page at least yet Wgolf (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article as Novelist currently meets the following criteria from WP:MUSBIO

1. He has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent. Including Resident Advisor, Fact (UK magazine), Mixmag, Complex (magazine) and The Independent

8. Has been nominated for a major music award - the MOBO awards recieve extensive mainstream coverage in the UK. The ceremony is broadcast live on ITV and the nominations have already been covered by the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, Fact ect

11. his music has received national rotation in the UK on BBC Radio 1Xtra and Rinse FM

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network multiple times. BBC Radio 1Xtra dedicated substantial airtime to Novelist in a documentary about grime broadcast in 2013 and he has also recorded multiple guest set for the station.

I also think a strong argument can be made under 7. "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city." for his current prominence in the London grime scene. Arials101 (talk) 20:32, 25 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 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlhard (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 October 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 15:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Received sufficient media coverage and he's on the next episode of Channel 4's new series, Four to the Floor. Plus not every grime artist gets nominated for a MOBO! --DJ UnBa lanced 20:21, 12 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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Delhi Mumbai

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

Non-notable film remake BOVINEBOY2008 17:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. At best WP:TOOSOON, at worst probably not ever notable. --Bejnar (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The single citation is dated August 20, 2011 and references a tweet. --Bejnar (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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

and WP:INDAFD: Mumbai Delhi Mumbai Satish Rajwade

Keep this brand new article about a film by notable Indian director Satish Rajwade that is to be released September 26 (before this AFD is slated to end). With respects, the topic is sourcable and this AFD is what may be "too soon". We can let the sourcable/improvable stub remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. What say, Bovineboy, Bejnar ?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They should have waited to write the article until there was significant coverage and not just hype. --Bejnar (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "hype" tends to be the case with all Indian films. My point was more that even with issues, this article was brand new on a film is due to be released on Friday and it could always have been nominated if it did not meet WP:NF after release. Why the rush to delete something that could be suitable in very few days? Why not simply suggest to its author that he keep it in userspace for a short while? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as it would be improper to ask @Richa101091: about why the article had to be rushed into the Wikipedia before the film's release and before there was significant coverage; it would be improper to ask @BOVINEBOY2008: as to possible unstated extrinsic reasons for deletion nomination, because such actions would not presume good faith. --Bejnar (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a temporary bold redirect without prejudice to writer/director Satish Rajwade or suggesting to an inexperienced author that a copy of his work might be best if kept as a draft for a short time, and then encouraging him to study WP:NF, would have been reasonable and not nearly as WP:BITEY as sending a brand new article to AFD. And as it was not a hoax nor a policy violation, was there really such a hurry? And while Marathi films are usually adapted from Hindi scripts, it is far less common to have a Hindi film adapted from Marathi.[10] Of course, now that we have confirmed release, and even with issues in sourcing Indian films, keeping this is now a simple matter of regular editing over time. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that it has been released, it looks as though it is non-notable. See here. --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To again disagree, the topic (finally) meets WP:NF... not based upon box office receipts or film popularity (or lack) but upon just enough coverage to meet the guideline. Heck, it's not a popularity contest, and even a total crap film can meet our inclusion criteria. What was first brought to AFD, as a 1113 characters (201 words) stub thought of as TOO SOON just 5 days after being contributed, is now a 2214 characters (375 words) Start or C class that serves our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course just meeting WP:GNG coverage is a case of YMMV, some of us discount hype and printing slightly reworded PR releases more than others. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV is funny, but not a guideline or policy. Intended to catch the readers eye and impart information quickly, Indian entertainment sources are rarely lengthy. Perhaps the government of India could be lobbied to outlaw any paper or electronic news article that is too short (by some arbitrary measure). My own understanding is that SIGCOV is defined here as coverage that gives us information directly related to the topic being covered and that the topic being sourced does not have to be the main topic of the source being used. Per guideline, significant coverage does not also have to be substantial coverage. Often confused with each other, the two terms do not mean the same... here. Be well, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expansion work shows this meets WP:GNG and now the film has been released, it will have even more coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:37, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hersh Davis-Nitzberg

AfDs for this article:

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

Wildly promotional article about a non-notable person, peppered with malformed references (and some places that look like references were added, but none are linked) to websites and articles that have little or nothing to do with the subject and do not indicate any notability. Considering Davis-Nitzberg is in the reputation management business, creating a bogus article on Wikipedia seems an especially bad idea. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims he founded a company that "dominated Southern Californian nightlife" for 11 years, and also claims that he is a "publicist". I was unable to find any coverage in independent, reliable sources describing any such dominance, or the other claims of influence, or anything else either. All I found was the usual array of social media sites, which do not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with User:Cullen328. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Cullen328, no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. The previous Afd ended early with a speedy delete as blatant promotion (G-11). --Bejnar (talk) 05:05, 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 16:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drchrono

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

I recognize that this meets the GNG, but it is nonetheless an insignificant company--its total revenue for 2013 is $2.8 million. The GNG does not force us to have an article in fields where there is an exceptional amount of hype. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use a rewrite, but there is sufficient coverage from major Reliable Sources. Even the nominator concedes that the subject meets GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As MelanieN points out, the nominator concedes WP:GNG. I think there have to he very compelling reasons to nevertheless delete an article that meets WP:GNG. Automated health data recording on personalized devices are where the technology is headed. So, I see no reason to entertain deletion. I am One of Many (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This badly needs a rewrite, but there looks to be enough sources in the article itself to meet WP:GNG. I think a bit of POV needs to be removed and fleshing out needs to happen, but I can see this as meeting our inclusion criteria. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment' WP:N is very clear that meeting the GNG does not mean that there must be an article. We have the right to judge to what extent the notability corresponds to somethign realistic for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 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 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Singh (Shoethrower)

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

a person who is known for throwing there shoe. Umm yeah. Wgolf (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:BLP1E. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Also if we let one person like this slide-then we might as well have every single person who has said boo during any political event. Which um yeah that would be way too many pages. Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E - If I threw my shoe at someone would I get an article? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E. EricSerge (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete: Prakash Singh Badal is Chief Minister of Punjab (not some tea maker in streets). Vikram Singh, who has thrown shoe on him on an event due to unemployment prevailing in Punjab is critical issue. Moreover, many charges were thrown on him which are wrongly charged by Punjab Police which lead to intervention of Human Rights. It is similar to Jarnail Singh (politician), Muntadhar al-Zaidi. But, if wiki have policy of only creating articles for Shoe throwers on American Politicians then you may proceed with deletion (i don't know this rule). The person who is saying above that this is BOO, then could you please provide stats of country where shoe throwing on politicians is very common and is part of culture and occur the second day? Moreover this incident, includes multiple events, shoe throwing, Aam Aadmi Party Involvement, Human Rights violation etc and even got support from Punjabis abroad. Rather then marking for deletion first it should be ask for expansion or merger? Rest wikipedia is yours :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karantsingh (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Davey-For an instance, If you throw shoe on Obama. You are caught by police and put into false charges. You belong to some anti Obama Group. Also People fed up of Obama come in your support. Then I think you are notable man. Please do not throw show on Obama for coming on to wikipedia ;)
Delete - what this protester did was sort of run of the mill in southwest Asia. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 07:16, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bali songwriting Invitational

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was copied out of AfC by an editor who appears to be connected with one of the organizers. The references provided are all promotional artist bios, announcements, or web sites of the organizing groups. I looked on the web for better references, including a check under "Bali Songwriting Summit", and didn't find anything. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent sources, all hype. No significant independent sources. Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. A gathering of notable artists does not create notability, comments and discussion in reliable sources does. --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHEF (disambiguation)

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

~~Seems like a miss use of a Disam page as just one abbreviation seems to fit and that is it. Wgolf (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Withdrawn-thanks to Boleyn for finding other uses, not a misuse anymore. Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that was a quick reaction! Thanks, Wgolf, Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 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. Although this looks like an obvious Keep I have discarded all the comments that do not address policy. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marooned (band)

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

This is a musical group that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep- the Renaissance Faire community is a smaller one, but it's certainly larger than many other recognized communities, and it's been around a long time, too. The members of Marooned have been active participants in the community for many years and are well known. They are valuable contributors to keeping folk music in general (and pirate music in specific) a living, growing musical genre. Their contributions to historical and charitable projects alone would qualify them for inclusion in any reference work. - Juli McCarthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.202.29 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This musical group has received several awards within its community and has been performing since 1995. While Renaissance Festivals are a niche market, I'd argue against their being deleted simply because they are part of a niche. They have been reviewed within the Pirate community (Bilgemunkey Pirate Radio, Celtic MP3s Magazine, Renaissance Festival Music Podcast - All of which are notable members of the festival community) and won awards via the Renaissance Festival Music Podcast's annual "Renaissance Festival Awards", which certainly makes them notable within that community.Ceronomus (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see you've added 19 references since the nomination. However, I don't see that any of those references, nor any of the ones present in the article at the time pof nomination qualigy as reliable sources for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Bilgemunkey Pirate Radio was, at the time it aired, the #1 source for all things relating to Pirate Music. While the show is now off the "air" it still has a solid following. I'd say that is notable. The Renaissance Festival Awards from the Renaissance Festival Music Podcast (which include the Renaissance Faire Hall of Fame awards) are followed by every major player in the Renaissance Faire community (and the major faires, such as Southern CA, Bristol, and New York are certainly quick to mention their wins and to acknowledge them with pre-recorded statements) and have since been picked up in annual print by Renaissance Magazine. Again, this is something that is certainly notable within this market. That you choose to ignore sources notable in the genre doesn't make them non-notable, it just means that you are disregarding them. Indeed, within the Renaissance Faire community the only "notable" sources are the Renaissance Festival Music Podcast, Renaissance Magazine and, to a lesser degree, RenFaire magazine. The Pirate Music and reenactment communities sources of note are No Quarter Given magazine, Mutiny magazine, Pirates Way magazine, Pirate magazine, and Bilgemunkey. That you refuse to recognize these sources reflects more on your lack of knowledge in these particular scenes than the notability of the sources. You choose to disregard the most notable awards in the Ren Faire music category as notable so... I don't know as anything will change your mind. Ceronomus (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and .musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It looks notable enough to have a article.Wgolf (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdboyc (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Wgolf and Bdboyc: Simply declaring theyre' notable is not helpful. Please explain how they are notable with evidence to support your position. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm actually a fan of this genre and the fact that they are part of at least 10 recordings is not insignificant in this field. I think multiple awards and press releases are relatable links for notability. Caffiendcc (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This group has been a defining influence both in the history of the national Renaissance Faire circuit musicians, as well as many Fandom and Gaming related conventions. They've contributed thousands of dollars in donations to multiple charities, as well as hundreds of hours of their time both towards performance and the conservation of the music created and performed by folk artists from all over the entire country. They have existed as a group for almost twenty years, and have friends and followers all over the world. This is by definition notable. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE.Cavalaxis (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have watched this group perform in venues across the united states including but not limited to Ren fairs and conventions. This combined with their work on multiple charity albums with a variety of notable artists places them in a noteworthy category. While the Ren community,pirate based community and gamer communities are all specialized, the fact that this group has been seen by thousands of people attending events for these communities should not be ignored. To do so insinuates that the communities themselves have a lesser value because of the focused nature of the fandom. I believe the draw of Wikipedia is that it is a source of information for the public, by the public.please do not invalidate the very mission of Wikipedia by make a value judgment on what subcultures are not worth representing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhatfield42 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article can't link to oral history or paper history (Ren Faire and Con programmes and flyers), which are just as valuable a source as any online news article or website. Twenty years of history and contribution is notable.Cavalaxis (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This group has albums available on Amazon and ITunes. They have performed in many environments including renaissance faires on both coasts, a promotional event for A&E, and every year for around 9 years for GenCon (the biggest gaming scifi/fantasy convention in the US I believe - though a couple of those years were at the smaller offshoot GenCon SoCal). They have been around since 95. One of the members held a significant position (artistic director I think) at the Bristol Renaissance Faire for multiple years. Another member has many audiobook and other voice over jobs under her belt. They are referenced in a book of sea shanties for one of their versions of a popular song. They helped to create a series of CDs of pirate music that donates all proceeds to New Orleans schools to buy musical instruments for the kids to learn with (in the wake of Katrina). They were approached by the creators of the role playing game system Sixcess to create a soundtrack for one of their settings - that is their newest cd, released in August of this year. Two of their members also created Modern Bard to collect and preserve renaissance faire music in all formats and from all performers possible. This is a group who is both constantly creating And constantly giving back to the music world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhoraigh (talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Dug through my songbook collection and found the book you are referring to. Citation added to the Mel Bay publication.
- Comment - http://www.noquartergiven.net/ae_sd.htm An article mentioning Marooned's performance at the A&E Horatio Hornblower event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhoraigh (talk • contribs) 08:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the band Marooned meets the criteria for notability based on the previously cited references to contributions to the Renaissance and gaming genres in this discussion, and that the Wikipedia page should be kept. Marooned has been has been performing as a group at Renaissance Festivals since 1995 and has been an official performer at GenCon for over a decade. This years' GenCon attendance was a record unique attendance of 56,614, ^[1], and featured artists are exposed to a significant number of those attendees during scheduled performance times. Additional third party sources covering or supporting the notability of the band Marooned: ^[2] - GenCon article identifying Marooned as a featured GenCon performer for 11 years. ^[3] - interview with Marooned by Indie Nation (indienation.fm). Marc.a.bruner (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen this group at multiple conventions and other venues for a very long time. They are extremely recognizable and sought out for their long history and depth of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmessnet (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I loved hearing their music on Bilgemunkey radio.. This Band is relevant to the Pirate Community ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.125.170 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Properly evaluating the grounds this deletion request is based upon requires a review of Wikipedia’s standards regarding use of primary sources and notability guidelines for music, and then applying a test of reasonability. Maintaining standards is crucial for Wikipedia to sustain credibility and continue to be a primary source of information beneficial to all users. However, we must guard against an overzealous application of those standards which results in the deletion of articles that demonstrate comparable values through the use of subculture resources. The article in question provides over 30 references; the majority of these references are acceptable if we apply genre-specific values for recognizing reliable sources. For example, “Renaissance Festival Podcast”, sponsored in part by “Renaissance Magazine”, founded in 2005, offers bimonthly podcasts of notable music and entertainment from Renaissance festivals in the U.S. and is currently compiling data for the 10th Annual Renaissance Festival Awards, which Marooned has received twice. Or we can look at “Bilgemunky Radio”, a respected source of information, which produced over 200 episodes in 5 years, and reviewed multiple album releases by Marooned. While these sources may not be comparable in size and prominence to “Rolling Stone Magazine” podcasts to the general public, they are well known in the community comprised of members devoted to Renaissance festivals, Irish folk music, sea shanties and a cappella groups. Credit should be given to this article for being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works as well as for placing in a major music competition. Marooned has played multiple venues across the United States, including nine years at GenCon, one of the largest gaming conventions in North America, which reported over 56,600 unique attendees this year. Again, the venue may not be comparable to the New York Philharmonic concert hall, but considering the record for highest attended indoor concert in U.S. history was set this summer (by George Strait at the Dallas Cowboy stadium) with an attendance of only double that number, it would seem that credit should be given for meeting this standard as well. By utilizing reasonable, comparable standards for this genre, Marooned would be considered notable by meeting more than one of the listed criteria. LVShadyLady (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Let's not forget that Indie Nation has been around and covering independent musicians since 2010 and is certainly a reliable source in the indie-music scene.Ceronomus (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Marooned is a notable pirate/renaissance faire band with a prolonged history, established and regular release schedule (11 albums in 11 years, as of 2014) and were one of the first performers to be retained by Gencon to entertain convention attendees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.238.246 (talk) 14:07, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They have won two national awards in their field, have been cited in a book published by Mel Bay, they have been interviewed by IndieNation, have been covered by the Renaissance Festival Music Podcast (sponsored in part by Renaissance Magazine) as well as a number of others (Bilgemunkey Pirate Radio, RenRadio, CelticMP3s Magazine, Celtic Geek Podcast) and even have had coverage from the Indianapolis Star. They have performed at a major event (40k+ people) for eleven years. I think LVShadyLady above sums it up fairly well. Ceronomus (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of minor mention mostly as part of promotional material is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even if one disregards the national awards in their field (which is an inclusive factor for notability, not an exclusive one), I don't see a whole lot of "promotional material" being cited here in this conversation as grounds for notability. As mentioned above, there is plenty of independent, reliable, coverage. Ceronomus (talk) 19:51, 26 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:02, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Das chess

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

No sign of WP:NOTABILITY. Just another chess variant among thousands, and a new one at that, this is currently sourced to the article proposing it at proza.ru, which is an anyone-can-publish platform. External links are all to anyone-can-publish or user-edited sites. Google finds just 5 hits with the name of the game and the last name of the creator, including this page. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show this has the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find about this are the self-published page on proza.ru, a similarly unsourced article on the Esperanto Wikipedia, and an article on what appears to be a fork of the Russian Wikipedia [11] though not on the actual Russian WP. Not even on chessvariants.org. — Gwalla | Talk 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., no significant independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 03:09, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Honai

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

Too soon? The only refs are just about how it will be made and nothing about if it is being made yet or not. Wgolf (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

and WP:INDAFD: John Honai

Delete...for now. The film's Pooja (IE: offical blessing and announcement) was held last month, and the topic of its production is getting a lot of media attention but. as filming has not yet commenced, we have a current failure of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow undeletion or recreation as soon as filming is confirmed. If author Sanatan2014 wishes it userfied, I'd say most definitely yes. This one will be back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:20, 24 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 10:15, 1 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film's principal photography hasn't begun and hence the article fails WP:NFF. Though the article states that "Shoot is said to begin by third week of September" there is no reliable source supporting this. September has passed.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:28, 11 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. Secret ^account 15:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nalawade

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

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information, and because the topic fails verification, and because the topic fails the general notability guideline for lack of citation to reliable sources about the topic. This article appears to be about a Maratha clan, I say appears because it lacks a lead section. It has been around for two years since 9 August 2012‎, so has had plenty of time for attention. The article currently has no citations concerning clan status. Sitush removed unreliable sources in 2012. See User talk:Starrahul#Maratha clans I was not able to find reliable sources to establish clan status. Even the not-reliable "crowd-sourced" surname page entitled Nalawade Genealogy, Nalawade Family History at Geni.com is empty. I found two Wikipedia articles that linked to this article, List of Maratha dynasties and states in which it is listed under "Rulers" for Pune, Satara and Sangli without citation, and List of Marathi films where it was a false drop for the actor Arun Nalawade, which false drop I have corrected. In Shrivastavya's 1952 book Are Rajput-Maratha Marriages Morganatic? the name "Nalavade" with the letter "v" is mentioned, but the sources and reliability are unclear. All of the existing citations are about individuals who happen to have "Nalawade", in some form, as a surname. Example: Mr. Dattatraya Shankar Nalawde Mayor of Bombay was born in village Vanake in Ratnagiri Dist. Anyone one of the three reason given above should be adequate for removal. I note that, among other warnings and bans, in October 2012 the article's author received a six-month topic ban on editing Maratha related articles, and did not return to editing after its expiration. --Bejnar (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could be replaced with a surname page listing the articles about people with this name (currently four). However, this does not require any continuity with the current article. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to this version of the page which had been previously trimmed down by Sitush, which describes it as a surname. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That version still fails verification since the citations that Sitush removed were only the unreliable ones. --Bejnar (talk) 04:30, 10 October 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 00:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:11, 17 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lindquist

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

This one has a WP:RESUME smell. His only claim to fame is a single NY Times article, but from that article alone I don't see how he is notable. Interesting side note: the article about some artist of the same name, until Erichten (talk · contribs) rewrote the article, and also created Zane Benefits (the name of Lindquist's company). I smell WP:SOAPBOX. bender235 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick is the 29 year old President of a software company that is changing the landscape of small business health insurance [12]. He has co-authored a book (with a NYT Bestselling author) that will be released this fall [13] and is sought after as a speaker and expert on US healthcare reform. Not sure why bender235 is after the page. While article may need to be updated, I don't agree with the suggestion to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonrbrand (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:BLPNOTE. It is WP:TOOSOON. Of the five citations in the article, two don't mention him, even in discussions of the company, two are closely related to him (his homepage, and his LinkEd page), and one mentions him in a review of the company, primarily quoting him. That is not the significant coverage required by our notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hijacked 2009 article about the artist also fails WP:BLPNOTE for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable BLP and business-spam Cramyourspam (talk) 17:52, 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 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Vs Guwop

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS for a standalone article. It is just one of the about ten "albums" that the artist has released in the last year. It did not chart at all, even on the genre charts and I cannot find any reviews for it either. It does not help that the article is the definition of a stub and the only ref is a link to buy the album. STATic message me! 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It his third album released this year not ten. It would be around 10 if you counted the mixtapes and collaborative releases but this is just albums. The reason he released so many ahead of schedule is because the first album of 2014 "Trap House 4" was one of his best charting releases since he returned to rap from acting, so he tried to do two follow-up albums to capitalize on his return to popularity. The reason there is only one source is because there wasn't any information released through news outlets, (you know, because he's in PRISON) and every time I try and source something with Twitter it gets deleted even though it's ran by one of his managers.

All in all, you can't just choose to delete a page just because you don't support his marketing scheme for releasing music, which happens to be rapid releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think he's a terrible artist, but to delete this page for no reason other than thinking his releases are irrelevant is wrong. Give it time for someone to clean it up and include more links. BlaccCrab (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the users address the fact that the album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. I care nothing of his marketing scheme or do I think his releases are irrelevant. Do not try to put words in my mouth. If the album does not meet WP:NALBUMS, it is as simple as that. If there was no coverage, there was no coverage, and it should not have a Wikipedia article. STATic message me! 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some coverage, I guess it could pass GNG. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] 2Flows (talk) 23:01, 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, Sandstein 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not significant independent coverage, it is routine trivial coverage. All the sources are nearly the same thing, just a few sentences and a posting of the album's stream. STATic message me! 20:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per coverage above. Koala15 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. --Bejnar (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More information has been added, including links. I spent hours searching for content, and am in the process of adding even more, I'm not sure if this was settled before now but it most definitely is now. Meets the standards link to above, thankfully we can all move on now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not substantial coverage, i'm afraid. Youtube and interviews and mere mentions don't make it. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 29 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 10:16, 1 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask culture vs. guess culture

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

Not well established as a concept in sociology or anthropology to be included in an encyclopedia. Gccwang (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - like subconscious, we have tended to keep lots of popular culture topics that have articles, even if the subject might not be recognized, or may even be a fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I certainly wasn't expecting to vote this way, but the sources look legit. I agree with Bearian. We don't really have much choice in the matter. Fringe nonsense, pop psychology, and web wisdom are all quite acceptable, as long as they're sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced by the references in the article. The Eichler and Drum sources are explicitly derivative of the Burkeman column in The Guardian so shouldn't be considered separate sources, so we are left with one personal column, not an editorially fact-checked article, in a newspaper. Unless we can can come up with some better sourcing than this I don't see how we can sustain an encyclopedia article on this topic. To compare this to the ultra-notable "subconscious" is simply ridiculous. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 18:58, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources, this is minor. We'd want considerably more than the Guardian for any article in science or social science--their judgement in these areas is unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 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, Sandstein 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:14, 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 07:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig O'Neill

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

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:GNG Quis separabit? 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of local interest only. Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only source is Univ. Central Arkansas which has his bio (apparently provided by the subject), and a news release of his donation of broadcast tapes. --Bejnar (talk) 03:47, 28 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 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local radio voice who simply happened to work for 30 years. unsourced except for two college website blurbs which appear to have subject-contributed content. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:04, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pah Tum

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

This has been tagged as a hoax for some time. An editor has noted on the talk page that it isn't mentioned in any of the many board game-related reference books he has checked. It may actually exist, [21] but even if it does it doesn't appear to be notable given the dearth of coverage in RSs. Fails WP:GNG (as well as WP:OR and WP:V). Jinkinson talk to me 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for lack of coverage. The game is claimed as an ancient game, one of the referenced sites indicates that a board was found in the XII Dynasty tomb of Reny-Seneb. But Llagostera, Esteban (2011). "El ocio en la antigüedad. Juegos del Mundo". Espacio Tiempo y Forma. Serie II, Historia Antigua (in Spanish). 1 (24): 305–329. makes it clear that the game found there bears no relation to "Pah tum", and that the archaeologists are completely ignorant of the rules of the Reny-Seneb game. This is confirmed in Chapter 2 of Tyldesley, Joyce A. (2007). Egyptian games and sports. Princes Risborough, UK: Shire. ISBN 978-0-7478-0661-5. where the Reny-Seneb game is referred to as "hounds and jackals". The claim of Mesopotamian and Assyrian Pah Tum boards could not be verified. It seems much more likely that the rules are of an entirely modern origin. --Bejnar (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. The ancient history has been trimmed from the article since its creation, but is particularly telling. Any board game from antiquity, especially one whose rules were known, especially one whose rules involve otherwise modern concepts like random space selection, would be a fruitful topic in scholarly analysis. But, predictably, Google Scholar is silent on the topic of "Pah Tum". Nor are there Google Books hits; even if this was a well-circulated game of more modern origin (with merely claimed ancient origins), it would appear in any of the litany of books about board games and abstract gaming, or in computer science game theory sources. But it is in none of those. Indeed, its only web presence appears to be a flurry of entries in open-submission board gaming sites (none of which constitute reliable sources), circa 2007–2008, and this 2008 entry at Wikipedia. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor of Pah Tum, Aamma58, has contributed a vast array of essentially or completely unsourced articles on abstract board games. I am struggling to find reliable sources, even trivial ones, for nearly all of them. More eyes would be appreciated. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Dialing this back, somewhat. There are a TON of really poorly sourced articles here, in something of a walled garden, but at least enough of them seem to be verifiable that I don't think it's appropriate for me to pull the Official Wikipedia Fire Alarm. My opinion on this article, however, stands unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 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 Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleone Hodges

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

Non-notable DavidSSabb (talk) 15:01, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are eleven other Appalachian State University faculty with Wikipedia biographies. Mrs. Hodges's story is comparable to the others but different in its own way. There are some twelve links with her article to other articles. She was a college basketball player and senior golfer as well as educator and secretary to the parks commission in Boone, N.C. She set many golfing records in her category and played until she was ninety-three. Besides her obituaries, there are two newspaper articles independent of her as well as a statement about her career read on the floor of the U.S. House by Representative Virginia Foxx. She was also a descendant of a political family from Louisiana. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although she sounds like an interesting person to have known, I can see nothing here that would be considered notable outside of her community of friends and neighbors. She does not qualify for academic notability, nor for sports notability. The entire article was written by Billy Hathorn, who (understandably) is voting "keep" but who, IMO, does not understand the role of Wikipedia. Billy, this is well-researched and finely written, but WP is not the proper venue for your work. I do hope you find or create such a venue. Note that there is a new wiki service called "Local Wiki" where you can create a wiki for whatever locality or level of locality you would like - town, city, county... Your articles would be great in a resource like that. It is, however, new-ish so you'd be kind of pioneering (e.g. there isn't a huge community to answer questions, etc.). Best of luck. LaMona (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is filled with minor incidents and local media coverage but presents nothing that could be used to show a pass of WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability criterion. And although living to 103 is quite an accomplishment, it's again not particularly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 1 October 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, slakr^\ talk / 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically because of NOTMEMORIAL. I checked the other articles in the category of Appalachian State faculty--almost all have more substantial accomplishments (I nominated 1 for afd). ~
Keep if she were an athlete with this level of sourcing, this would be a featured article.Jacona (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She was an athlete, at LSU, and as a golfer in her later years, she made a hone-in-one past the age of ninety. There are featured stories about her prior to her death. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as others have mentioned, fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:GNG, and even WP:PROF. Sources cited are either obits of her death or her coverage in them is incidental to something else. --slakr^\ talk / 10:11, 14 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 redirect to NewMediaRockstars. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Luo

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

No significant notability outside NewMediaRockstars (which ~~is itself at AfD~~ has itself just survived AfD as "no consensus"). Recommend redirect to said parent article. —Swpb^talk 14:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 15:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

('Delete The redirect will be sufficient. (even if we end up keeping that article, which I will nominate again for afD. It received insufficient attention, but I am think that if it does received attention, it will be deleted. ) DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Secret ^account 19:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Gharib-Afshar

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

Article's subject doesn't meet the notability guideline. Additionally, copy editing from here, here etc... 115ash^→(☏) 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete QUICKLY Copyright violation and he is not famous. 81.151.128.245 (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While saying nothing on the notability issue, I would note that this article has been in existence for some while and that both of the links in the nomination go to sites which regularly copy material from Wikipedia. I don't think that copyright violation is an issue here. PWilkinson (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication with instructions to author to provide inline citations to reliable sources. If the author has questions about whether a particular source is reliable, it can be asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As it is currently written and sourced it fails the significant coverage test. Some of the claims seem dubious, or are at least badly stated, and as written are not supported by the existing references. --Bejnar (talk) 05:01, 28 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 16:35, 2 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:02, 9 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 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karam Family

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

List of potential family members which consists of mostly redlinks and no sources. I searched on a couple names and couldn't find anything to indicate notability. Article was de-prodded over a year ago by creator but no improvements have taken place. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It may have been dePRODed which means AfD would be the next step, but that doesn't make it immune from A7 for making absolutely no claims to notability. It would be an insult to regular Wikipedians to expect them to find sources for this family vanity page. Some of the people in the family have Wikipedia pages but that still doesn't even make this page useful as a list article. That said, it may be worthwhile checking on the notability of those other pages too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does A7 apply to families? The guideline doesn't say so explicitly. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CSD criteria have generally been narrowly construed. A family is not a real-world person nor an organization, so does not strictly qualify for A7. But the fact that this article makes no assertion of notability or importance whatsoever is still a valid reason for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can come up with documentation. They could be the Lebanese Kennedys or Bushes, but I Googled "karim family" "youssef bey" and got no results. I'd definitely expect that if there were discussions of this family in English, there'd be pages online with that phrase and that person's name on them. There could be apt sources in Arabic, but I have no way to identify them and, unless someone supplies them, I'd rather not have this indiscriminate list of mostly red links with no introductory text explaining the significance of the family as a unit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. The family may well include notable individuals, but that does not in of itself make the family as a whole notable - something that needs to be demonstrated through third-party reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to Karam. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. Even Karam#Persons. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I agree with much of what has been said above, I think one common sense point must be made: when all of the red links are removed from this article, it won't be much of a list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dirtlawyer's reasoning. There is no coherent topic here to justify an article or list. I still think A7 would have applied. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails to meet any of our notability guidelines due to insufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and fails to meet notability guidelines.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is a tough one. I think many of the people listed may be notable and also the family. When I search on the arabic names, a lot of sources that look reliable in arabic pop up, but I don't know arabic and I just don't know much about Lebanon. I think we lack editors from that part of the world, so for now, we should probably delete it. I am One of Many (talk) 06:46, 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 16:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Rich, Jr.

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

Only very faint passing mentions found; seems to fail WP:NMUSIC. Supposedly toured nationally but sources are very scant. Concerns that this may not be prod-worthy led to me withdrawing the prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - thank you, TenPoundHammer, although I'd mixed him up with another singer. In any case, there is some evidence that this artist has toured nationally, mostly at state fairs - Missouri state fair, Utah state fair, Lakeside and Wild Rose casinos in Iowa, and the Wisconsin state fair. Oddly, I don't see any in-depth reviews online, but rather lots of short mentions. For widespread but not much significant coverage, I'd say he's barely notable. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MUSIC#4 is about a concert tour, not about driving yourself around a country and playing at small fairs. It also requires nontrivial coverage. Neither is satisfied here. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:MUSIC for lack of significant coverage, also per duffbeerforme. --Bejnar (talk) 05:04, 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 keep. Keep. The delete arguments are mostly "this isn't important", but our criteria for establishing notability is based on references to reliable sources, and those seem to exist in sufficient numbers. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Latvia relations

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

the whole article is based on a single one day visit to Latvia by the Bangladeshi foreign minister. That has been the only minister visit between the 2 countries in 21 years of relations. There is no evidence of significant ongoing relations between the countries except this one day news spike. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS--114.81.255.40 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, five references with indepth coverage. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 references referring to one day of relations. And 2 of them are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the 'facts' or 'events' in the article add up to anything of the slightest notability. Bored mumbler in suit shakes hands with minor numpty from somewhere or other. Gee whiz. Small brief splash noticed in very small pond when someone puts on their sunglasses. Gosh. If we can't delete this under the GNG then it's an utterly useless criterion. Notable? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You gotta be kidding! In 2012, Bangladeshi foreign minister paid an official visit to Latvia, Bangladesh and Latvia have signed an MoU recently on agricultural sector, all these things show that the relationship has become significant and is growing at a good pace. The article also meets the general notability guidelines since there are several references from reliable sources with significant coverage. I can show you more [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. There are many information to add. Nomian (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yep one single visit in one day by a foreign minister is the only visit in over 20 years of relations. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a recent visit which indicates there are more to come. And most importantly the article meets general notability guidelines, so according to the policies it should be kept. Nomian (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"More to come" is WP:CRYSTAL. most of those additional sources are primary, they refer to a new ambassador who isn't even based in Latvia. Offering condolences about the ferry disaster is WP:ROUTINE coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously notable and adequately sourced. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the relations between countries that have officially recognized eachother, have made an official visit, and have signed a written agreement is more than just "news" and there is no good reason for deleting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all in just one day of 21 years of relations, just one official visit, it wasn't an agreement, it was a mere memorandum of understanding. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge I agree that single meetings between country representatives, even if they result in some useful agreements, do not deserve their own article. The possible exception may be meetings that result in major treaties (cf Helsinki_Accords) but these are rarely single events. This information should be merged into the page on Bangladesh, preferably in the area "Foreign relations and military" which is heavy on military and rather light on foreign relations. In fact, those two topics could be split, and there would seem then to be room for a more in-depth discussion of foreign relations. LaMona (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only a single meeting, I have shown other sources. And the foreign relations section of country articles are only reserved for neighboring or rival countries and countries with strategic partnership or a strong alliance. Nomian (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:20, 2 October 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, slakr^\ talk / 06:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is a rather borderline article. I'm ultimately going to vote keep because there was an official state visit and an official treaty signed between the two nations, in addition to some other interactions over the years. Likewise, quite a few sources have been presented. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not a state visit. A state visit means prime minister or president visit. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 4 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 16:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Sixsmith

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Nigel Sixsmith

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

Unable to find significant coverage independent of the subject of this BLP, do not believe the page meets GNG nor do I believe it meets the criteria of MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree and would suggest the closely-related The Art of Sound is equally worthy of deletion. Nedrutland (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references at present, and though I tried several web searches I found no independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Qwfp (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails GNG.–Davey2010 • (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a nice guy, but fails to have any real coverage. Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:MUSIC for lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 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 KEEP. (Non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mami Matsuyama

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

A person known for dressing up as a VG character? Um not sure how that is notable. Plus the "source" goes to bing oddly. Wgolf (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Japanese Wikipedia article may say more things about her. As for the link that redirects to Bing, it's an expired Mainichi Shimbun link. I tried to look at the Wayback Machine but it said explicitly that the link was excluded from it :( WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Thanks, yeah can't find that much on her though. At first I thought it meant the character was modeled after her and I was thinking oh that's cool then I realized I read it wrong and was going yeah might as well as have everyone at comic con now or something! Wgolf (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to see what I can find with "松山まみ" - The Google hits suggest that she's some kind of model or swimsuit model, but I need to get those precious "reliable sources" WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Well at least I did manage to find this or else it might of sat around even longer without anyone knowing! Wgolf (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm not sure if it counts but I found a DVD on Kinokuniya Ｐｕｒｅ　Ｓｍｉｌｅ　松山まみ WhisperToMe (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Books shows several books about her, but I don't know much about who publishes them. They may be erotic photograph books, but Google Books lists them. I'll enlist help with the Japan Wikiproject.

まみラシク歩イテク。: 松山まみ1st写真集. 竹書房, Nov 29, 2003.
告白伝えたい思い: 松山まみ2nd写真集. 竹書房, Mar 10, 2005.
旅立ち雪が消えぬまに: 松山まみ写真集. ワニブックス, May 10, 2006.
松山まみ「恋のはじまり」. ラインコミュニケーションズ CapturedBooks.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Delete Fails biographic notability. Appearing in a swimsuit on a DVD or in a magazine is not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Based on new sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that Matsuyama was not just a model for erotic photo books and DVDs, but for a time an actress with some press coverage. Her biggest role was in the TV show Chousei Kantai Sazer-X and its movie version, Chousei Kantai Sazer-X the Movie: Fight! Star Warriors, but she also had a regular role in Gal Circle. As a result of all this, for a time she did have coverage in the major sports papers and tabloids: for example, SpoNichi, Sports Hochi, Nikkan Spa, and the regional paper Mutsu Shinpo. She also had articles on other major entertainment sites like Oricon Style, and Zakzak [28] [29]. This is coverage that is on par with a gravure idol just achieving fame. The problem is that she disappeared after 2007, and apart from occasional blog posts wondering what happened to her, there is no real coverage after that. Michitaro (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on new information - Archived Mutsu Shimpo - Yomiuri Archived - Also: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." and "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." WhisperToMe (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure that Japanese "sports" newspapers, which seem to largely feature young female swimmers (!) are a reliable source. As for the entertainment notability claim, if you are referring to the TV shows Michitaro mentions above, Gal Circle is tagged for notability while both Chousei Kantai Sazer-X and Chousei Kantai Sazer-X the Movie: Fight! Star Warriors are unreferenced, indicating that they too have inclusion issues. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Seriously, the sports papers in Japan are not "largely" featuring "young female swimmers." They are daily national papers focusing on sports and published by the major national dailies (Sponichi/Sports Nippon is a subsidiary of the Mainichi Shinbun and Sports Hochi is a division of the Yomiuri Shinbun, Japan's largest paper). They also publish regular and entertainment news and are used as reliable sources throughout Wikipedia (I have also used them on many AfDs). As for the TV shows and film, I have added some sources--all easily pass notability requirements. I am still undecided, however, whether this is sufficient to make Matsuyama notable. Michitaro (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: If the shows are notable, then she is covered by Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." as long as she has significant roles in at least two of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She meets WP:BASIC ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]) and WP:ENTERTAINER criterion #1. 122.17.193.9 (talk) 20:39, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the material provided by 122.17.193.9, in addition to what I found, is sufficient to pass WP:GNG criteria. Michitaro (talk) 16:30, 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 15:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Sunday Night Movie

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

Unsourced list of films with nothing more in common than the timeslot for airing. The links itself are often not about the movie. The Banner talk 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by NBC Common made-for-TV block that's well in the rear-view now; could never be comprehensive or well-sourced unless every week the movie aired was sourced, and going back to 1980? No way. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it started and ended as a one off fill in show, these movies were a staple of weekly programming through the 1980s and 1990s. It was something the NBC programming executives could pull out of the hat to fill a 2 hour block. Custom movies were produced and top box office movies were purchased. I sourced a list of movies and the ratings. There were at least four annual ratings where this "series" was in the top 30. Folks, that is significant. It would be irresponsible to delete an article on something that significant. Trackinfo (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not with a random context-less list of films and ratings which are impossible to quantify (and are confined to one era; the 2000's, when film ratings for all networks nosedived and just before NBC decided that Sunday Night Football would do a lot better). I understand the Sunday network movies did well for three decades, but in this form the article needs more work and a redirect to the 'list of article' mentioning the network's film brandings is more appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 17:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that this article needs more work. I found some additional information to base that work on. There is plenty more to google. At the moment, here, we are discussing the article's mere survival as a subject for wikipedia. I expressed my opinion: A top 30 Nationally rated American television show from the 80s is not something that deserves to be deleted. WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. That answers the question for this discussion. Beyond that, yes there should be improvement to the article, a discussion about the television ratings plummeting in the 2000s is valid here. The demise of the movie in favor of NBCs long sought opportunity to air football is valid. We could also discuss long form entertainment (2 hour blocks of programming, instead of half hours) and the creativity of programming executive decisions that lead to this. There is a lot that could be said to make this article better. Trackinfo (talk) 21:47, 25 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 10:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep television history. and rival network's sunday night movie is listed Cramyourspam (talk) 15:17, 1 October 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 15:32, 9 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Swanson

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

appears not to meet notability criteria. Additionally, this article has 2 people lumped together as one (look at the references), and splitting doesn't solve the notablility issue (also note Ticket:2014091210002996, which concerns me starting this AfD). --Mdann52talk to me! 07:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I don't have log in to your ticket thing, so I can't verify what is the problem. Second, as I mentioned in my edit summary one of them have over 400 photos for various notable magazines, as the ref suggests. My suggestion would be to live at least one of them. Any thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This (details) shows that his archive is kept and catalogued by a major university, which I think indicates notability (in the normal sense of the word), and I think that there are enough bits and pieces about him on the web for the creation of an article. (There may be material in books and magazines too.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC) .... Elaboration: Keep an article on the Dick Swanson who was born in 1934. (I haven't yet formed an opinion on the 1933–2009 Dick Swanson.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the main problem is that there are at least two Dick Swanson's that are photographers. The one born in 1934, raised in Illinois with the utexas.edu archive, wife from Vietnam, White House photos, etc.[37] / swansonphotography.com And the one born in 1933 in Michigan, died 2009 in Florida.swanson-media.com One of those (or a third Dick Swanson?) took a bunch of photos for the EPA in the 1970s and some of them ended up on commons, commons:Category:Dick Swanson. I think the utexas.edu one is the more interesting one, but there is very little biographical detail available online to use to make a proper biography. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thank you for bothering to elucidate what I'd been too lazy to look into. ¶ The photographer of commons:Category:Dick Swanson is given a little fingernail [it hardly amounts to a "thumbnail"] sketch here. This work is hard to square with what's written in the CV of Swanson 1933-2009, though not completely incompatible with it. It's easier to square with the potted autobio of the other Swanson. Whoever the photographer was, I'd expect there to have been some correspondence between him and the relevant government agency; unfortunately the U Texas archive doesn't appear to include any correspondence, so we learn nothing here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but focus on Dick L. Swanson, photographer (b. 1934) of the U Texas archive and remove swanson-media.com related items. I found a handful of sources Talk:Dick Swanson#Dick Swanson (b.1934) and I think he meets WP:Artist. He seems well known in assignment photography, especially Vietnam related. A Day in the Life of the United States Armed Forces lists him amongst their list of "25 of the best military photographers". And his bio says his work is included in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art.[38] Business Insider also thinks he is the same Dick Swanson of commons:Category:Dick Swanson and it would be nice to have a bio here since there are several dozen DOCUMERICA photos on commons. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Business Insider also thinks he is the same Dick Swanson of commons:Category:Dick Swanson. Yes it does, and it may very well be correct. However, I don't find it at all persuasive. (See my comment in the talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dual Freq subsequently found more, persuasive (if perhaps not citable) evidence for identifying the photographer of Philadelphia with ~~Swanson 1933-2009~~ Swanson b.1934. (See the article's talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC) .... edited Hoary (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I was saying it is the Dick L. Swanson (b.1934) in Illinois and still living, the current subject of the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You were indeed. (What an incredibly stupid thing for me to have written. I blame it on jetlag; others may blame it on senility.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 24 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 12:43, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratko Zjaca

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

Not notable enough to have a stand-alone article in WP. If the name is a search tool then could be redirected to a band he worked in. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG and I can see no suitable redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep based on a review at [39], a short review at [40], and a short review at [41]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:41, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on minimalist coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:23, 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. Kudos to James500 for his excellent work on the restructured article. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 Stone Buildings

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

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Some of the members may be notable but I doubt the chambers themselves are. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTINHERITED is only an essay, and I doubt that its logic can be applied here. Places (and this is a building) typically acquire notability for their inhabitants and the events that happen there. James500 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious consideration should be given to the possibility of merging this article and 11 Stone Buildings into a single article at Stone Buildings, dealing with the entire street, which is likely to be notable. James500 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I think Stone Buildings probably has a chapter in this. They were constructed in 1774 by Sir Robert Taylor. When one feeds that into GBooks one gets quite a few results quickly including things like this. Palladian design is highly regarded. Pitt the Younger had chambers there. Appears as a setting in a novel by Anthony Trollope. And so forth. I think Stone Buildings is notable and the merger, redirect and rewrite I proposed should go ahead. James500 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Move to Stone Buildings and make it about the building as a whole? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is essentially what I am proposing. The same sort of job I did at Paper Buildings and Pump Court. James500 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am iminently about to perform this rewrite. I don't know if I'll finish it in a day. James500 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we can wait a few days to see the outcome. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The article requires and will receive further expansion but should be immune from deletion in its present form. James500 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC) @ User:Philafrenzy: Is the article acceptable now? James500 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As regards, no. 5 itself, it seems that the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Solicitor to the Treasury were there. Quite a few sources mention this. This is official. The editorial office of The Law Times (236 vols from 1843 to 1965 when it merged into the New Law Journal) was there: [42] [43]. The Office of the General Council of the Bar might also have been there. James500 (talk) 12:42, 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 09:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Problems fixed. Stone Buildings obviously satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am changing my vote to keep. Thanks to James500's excellent work the current article is clearly notable. With a few possible exceptions, most of the sets will not be individually notable so this is the right way to handle them in my view. I think the info boxes could also be removed. I haven't checked but if there are more then they could get the same sort of amalgamation. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:07, 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 12:42, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Dawn Records

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

Non-notable label associated with non-notable artists. Λeternus ^(talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been on wikipedia for almost 10 yrs. Numerous artists with Wikipedia pages (thus notable?) have links to the record label article. See links above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Tokyo_Dawn_Records&limit=999) . —Gaff ^ταλκ
- Article's lifespan on Wikipedia is irrelevant in establishing its subject's notability. Also, notability is not inherited, which means the subject needs to be independently covered by multiple reliable sources. --Λeternus ^(talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, Lifespan on WP does not = notable, but it the number of notable artists with WP articles that link to this page (because it is their record label) does account for something. As for the sholar articles mentioned below: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Tokyo+Dawn+Records%22 (This is also avilable above this discussion on the "find sources" section. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several mentions on Google Scholar, appears to be a well established and respected netlabel. MEP MEP1697 (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide some links to these Google Scholar mentions? (Also keep in mind that trivial mentioning is not sufficient in establishing notability.) --Λeternus ^(talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 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 09:35, 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 12:41, 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 09:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mason (singer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AFD closed as "no consensus". Rationale same as last time: Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. All coverage comes from the time that he won CMT's Next Superstar, with no subsequent coverage whatsoever. This seems to be a case similar to Angela Hacker, who won a season of Nashville Star but received no coverage after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In my view, the "keep" consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Mason (singer) was not at all unreasonable. There's coverage of him beyond just news of his Next Superstar win, for example in the Dayton Daily News I found there is coverage from 2012, and also a bit of coverage of him touring in 2013 (Don Thrasher. "The Top", Dayton Daily News 26 July 2013: p. AC.3.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:05, 6 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpuri Boys

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. This has been closed twice as no consensus because of a lack of responses. I'm hoping that the third time, this will attract more comments and that if not, it will be relisted several times so we can finally get an answer on this. It has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, so it is worth having it open for a while at AfD to sort it. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be doing a noble effort on that local language but still do not have enough notability. Delete and maybe redirect the title somewhere. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The best redirect I could see was Music of Mauritius#Asian music in Mauritius. Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. See link to google books search. There are at least 4 books that have them referenced as important cultural figures.--—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:12, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 10:12, 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 12:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this is still failing to attract many respondents, I just wanted to repeat that this has already been closed twice as no consensus because of a lack of responses. I'm hoping that the third time, this will attract more comments and that if not, it will be relisted several times so we can finally get an answer on this. It has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, so it is worth having it open for a while at AfD to sort it. Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This band already meet the criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of WP:BAND and WP:GNG as well (look at the refs). I can't see why it is re-listed again and again while there is no reason for deleting it. Kingroyos (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: While relistings are typically limited to two, the two previous AFD discussions for this article were both closed as no consensus due to limited user input. Relisting again in hopes to obtain more input for this third discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it be as no consensus. They are important in Mauritius, but apparently not much elsewhere. If push came to shove I'd say delete. --Bejnar (talk) 05:25, 10 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rickard William Lloyd

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

I'm not sure meets criteria for WP:GNG. If he wrote two books that are un-noteworthy, does that warrant a need for an encyclopedia article? Otherwise, the article is an obituary, already publised elsewhere, 80 yrs ago. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entry in Who's Who indicates notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJT21 (talk • contribs) 6 September 2014

- Sorry, but how so? Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Notes point # 5, a Who's Who entry does not prove notability —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That note refers to Marquis Who's Who, an entirely different publication from Who's Who (UK) (and Who Was Who), which doesn't accept self-nominations. Qwfp (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do all 33,000 Britons listed listed in Who's Who (UK) have/need WP articles? I'm not arguing, just asking the question... —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Clearly they don't all have WP articles at present, and I don't believe WP's coverage of UK people in any sense needs all of them to have WP articles. Nor do I believe having an entry in Who's Who should be sufficient to survive AfD. But I think it's an indicator of notability that can contribute, along with others. Qwfp (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We have always accepted, for example that an obit in the NYT is conclusive proof of notability. A & C Black's Who's Who belongs in the same category. It is very unlikely that the professional biographers of that publication would make a mistake about who is and isn't notable. James500 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BMJ and Who Was Who are both independent, reliable sources, so meets WP:GNG. (I notice the nominator also added a tag to the page about possible WP:Conflict of interest, but the origin of this concern is not obvious to me.) Qwfp (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag deleted. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 10:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rickard William Lloyd was a pioneering anaesthetist before it became the relatively 'unexceptional' role it is perceived as today MJT21 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. To use MJT21's word - unexceptional. Delete Bristolbottom (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. User:Bristolbottom seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.41 (talk) 12:02, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not against using Who's Who to bolster notability, but it's not sufficient. I found his obit in BMJ, plus three articles (one of which is listed on the article but only by the title -- tsk tsk):

Dr. Rickard William Lloyd (this would be the obit) The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3777 (May 27, 1933), p. 940

The Field Of View Of The Anaesthetist Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2198 (Feb. 14, 1903), pp. 401-402

Slow Heart Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3357 (May 2, 1925), p. 860

Fatal Collapse After Extirpation Of Kidney Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2642 (Aug. 19, 1911), pp. 409-410

The obit should yield some good information, but I do not have access to JSTOR, so I put these out there and hope that someone with better access can get to it and add to the article. Other than that, I found nothing other than the metadata for his book, but I can't find a digital copy (hoping for a nice intro with bio information). LaMona (talk) 22:55, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Of note is that the second !vote suggests topic notability, but doesn't qualify it. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webix

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

I believe Webix doesn't satisfy general notability guideline.

Coverage in multiple independent sources is required; the only substantial articles are two on InfoQ [44] [45], but both are written by the same person, thus not independent. It's also not clear whether InfoQ falls under WP:SPS, see [46]
Two cited sources [47] and [48] (now removed from article) I'd say are not substantial coverage. The 2nd is mostly a list of screenshots from the Webix website.

In addition, the article also has issues with tone and neutrality. -- intgr [talk] 17:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. James500 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webix was also mentioned in this article http://t3n.de/news/webix-form-builder-formular-generator-562130/. It tells about a new form generator Form Builder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelluvuus (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - Notability marginally established by [49] and [50] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - I know that there's room for improvement here, primarily because familiar with it myself enough to know that there are possibilities for more sources. I think it's a bit of a poor article, but not deletion worthy. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Human.v2.0: If you know there are more sources, please list them or add them to the article for future editors to build upon. -- intgr [talk] 07:53, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 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 15:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prasuton Manorah (TV series)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. It has no Thai-language article and I don't read Thai, so there may be something I'm missing, which is why I chose AfD rather than prod. As it is an orphaned page, I couldn't propose a possible redirect title. Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The TV series is quite old. Good references to establish notability would be old newspapers (Thai Rath, etc.). Googling "บี มาติกา มโนราห์" (the famous actress+series name) will lead to Youtube video of the series, forum topics with old photos from series, and sites selling DVD of the complete series. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be on Youtube, and there may be DVDs of it, but neither of these indicate notability. It is also important that its notability is WP:V verifiable. Are you able to verify its notability? It has been tagged for more than six years for notability, and no one has come up with sources to verify it in that time. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although most of their representation in Wikipedia isn't well-written, Thai television soap operas generally receive a good deal of independent coverage in the media. I would expect any prime-time soap opera to have lots of entertainment news coverage during the period of its production and broadcast, therefore establishing notability per the WP:GNG. Since this one is from 2002, most of the coverage wouldn't likely exist online, but one should be able to locate them in newspaper archives, should one wish to. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:01, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a tricky one. I can't read or understand Thai, so a search would be somehow meaningless, but my search, for the most part, gave me unrelated stuff. However, the series is from 2002, long enough to be a period where any online coverage, if there are any, would possibly be dead by now. The thing is, it aired on a national channel, and apparently at a primetime slot too, which should be enough to establish notability. Given that we must counter systemic bias, I believe that some leeway should be given, and thus, lower standards should be given for non-English series such as this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:09, 5 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). The source from The Daily Star is reliable, but it's debatable whether this is over the threshold of providing enough coverage to qualify as significant. I feel that this source falls short of providing significant coverage about the album. I'm unable to access the second source from ebanglamusic.org at this time. closing as no consensus due to 1) a lack of participation after two relistings and 2) a lack of discussion about the sources provided. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doob (album)

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

A solo album which has no notability at all. Wgolf (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, [51], [52]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Kmzayeem. – nafSadh did say 02:20, 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 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 redirect to DZMB. Regarding the first redirect !vote, the DZMB article has a list of programs that the radio station broadcasts. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True Love Conversations

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

A radio call in program that is on a network, now maybe if it was something major something like this could have a page-but not so much for here, only refs are FB and Twitter. Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manila Broadcasting Company or to a list of programs that they broadcast - I think this program actually does have quite a following (I occasionally get to tune in), but surprisingly there seems to be little coverage for the program itself. I can recall the host (Papa Jack) occasionally being interviewed by the newspapers' entertainment sections (mainly for his hosting the show, not about the show itself), so that possibly could establish notability for the host, but perhaps not for the program. For now, a redirect (rather than total deletion) is probably a better alternative. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment-Interesting enough the host has no page and I looked him up and nothing even links to that name!Wgolf (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to DZMB where the program segment is mentioned. As for Papa Jack's notability, I think that should be a topic for another day.--Lenticel ^(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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to add segments, spin-offs and some references to improve the article. Aztegdude (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning toward a redirect, but two different redirect targets are suggested. Relisting to obtain more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DZMB. Manila Broadcasting Company has many radio stations, a more specific target would be more helpful. –H T D 20:31, 14 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Sandu (lawyer)

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

It fails WP:Notability (person), as there are little reputable secondary sources demonstrating his notability. The creator of the article notes on the talk page that the subject is "a friend", and that he or she is "writing this article to him". Ollieinc (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This gentleman appears to be accomplished, but I'm not sure how to evaluate the various positions. I was intrigued by the "Secretary of State" title (e.g. [53]), however, there appear to 15 ministries each with many secretaries of states who are subordinate. - Location (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following passage asserts Sandu was "General Inspector of Romanian Police" -- that sounds like he meets the criteria for WP:Politician, as it is a national office. If he was appointed a Brigadier General then he meets the criteria for WP:GENERAL. Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On January 2001 Colonel Sandu was appointed General Inspector of Romanian Police, function which will hold until November 2003. Following this appointment, he was promoted to brigadier general which later turned in the function of Principal Questor.

Also found mention as "Chief of Police" in a US State Department report: [54]. - Location (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About a decade ago I read that an incoming US President has about 3,000 political appointments he or she makes, starting the the Departmental Secretaries that sit in the Cabinet, then Secretaries, like Secretary of the Navy, that are not at the Cabinet level, Directors of Agencies like NASA, NOAA, NPS, EPA, FBI. Some contributors wrongly assert that WP:Politician only applies to elected offices, but I think that is a mistake. I think it applies to all "office holders", including appointees. I don't care if this Romanian title is translated into English as "Chief of the National Police", "Inspector General of the National Police", "Director of the National Police". He was clearly an "office holder". He was clearly a senior office holder, at the National level. So he clearly qualified for wikipedia notability under the special purpose notability guideline WP:Politician. Note, this does not apply just to American office holders. Translation can be odd, and counter-intuitive, so I encourage you not to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Please also bear in mind the long-standing precedent to consider all Generals and Admirals as notable. The military wikiprojects guidelines are not quite a special purpose notability guideline. But they might as well be, because their guidelines are routinely treated as if they were one of the special purpose notability guidelines. The military wikiproject members have been extremely aggressive that military officers at the Colonel or Naval Captain level are not automatically notable, but that officers at the flag level, that is Brigadier Generals and Commodores are automatically notable. And, apparently, Sandu was promoted to Brigadier General -- so automatically notable under that criteria as well. Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, but the wording of WP:POLITICIAN could not be clearer; it applies to "Politicians ... who have held ... national ... office". Not civil servants, politicians. That means executives and legislators, period. And no one claimed ambiguity about what his role was, just that this role in fact did not automatically entitle him to an article. Finally, as I pointed out, he was not a general in the military, but in the police. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed some kind of distinction under which police generals didn't count as generals, but, when asked to explain this distinction between army generals, who count as generals, and police generals who don't count as generals, you were completely silent.

If Sandu didn't rise through the ranks of the National Police, if, instead, politicians cherry-picked him from outside the National Police, and parachuted him to this national office, then he was a political appointee -- i.e. a politician. Geo Swan (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible the Romanian police has inflated ranks where the rank of general means something quite different from in the military and is commonplace, but I doubt it, and unless that's the case his rank is one more thing that confers notability. —innotata 07:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man has a number of accomplishments, and with better references he should have the inline citations to show notability.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - let me start by clearing up a few points.
- As Location notes, each Romanian ministry has at least a couple of state secretaries, and while a few of them rise to prominence in the public eye, most are senior civil servants with no particular claim to notability.
- Regarding Geo Swan's observation, I'll note a couple of things. First, until 2002 (and keep in mind, Sandu was appointed in 2001), the Romanian Police had a military structure, meaning its employees had military rank, including that of general. So he was a police general, not an army general, to which WP:SOLDIER refers (at least I would infer that). In any case, military rank alone cannot substitute for coverage in reliable sources.
- Second, WP:POLITICIAN refers to "Politicians ... who have held ... national ... office". Sandu is a civil servant, an agency executive, not a politician. And, not to raise a WP:WAX argument, but most heads of national police agencies actually don't have articles on Wikipedia, although whether they should have them is, I suppose, a separate question.
Having made these points, I don't think Sandu quite merits a "keep" vote based on an inherent-notability argument stemming from his positions. And in terms of sources: well, the article is glaringly lacking in those.
I more or less tend toward a delete (or perhaps userfy) on this one, unless the article creator can come up with some sources, in which case I might reconsider. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what a "Police General" is. Perhaps, in recent centuries, most Generals and Admirals in Western countries are careerists, who rose step by step through each rank in the military hierarchy. This isn't true for all officers today, and certainly wasn't true for most of human history. For instance, at the time George Washington became a junior officer in a UK militia, officers almost always bought their army commissions. That brief militia experience in one of the UK's wars was all the genuine military experience he had before he became the General in charge of the Continental Congress's Army. How many of the officers in the Continental Congress's Navy had been career naval officers -- even briefly?
You say the Romanian Police had a military structure until 2002? The passage I quoted said he was promoted to Brigadier General in 2003.
JAG officers in the US military are still considered officers, aren't they? Some JAG officers were already officers, or enlisted guys or gals, who were sent to law school, or studied law at night school -- and joined the JAG corps when the got their law degree. Others however were lawyers, who volunteered, and were directly commissioned. I suggest this erodes your distinction between "police generals" and "army generals".
Sorry, I think the characterization of all appointees as "civil servants" is wildly unrealistic. Career civil servants, who join some civilian agency right out of finishing college, and or shortly after finishing college, take an entry level position, and then slowly work their way up from entry level to direct their agencies -- are they "civil servants" or "politicians"? I'll return to this later.
How much do you know of the careers of J. Edgar Hoover and Hyman Rickover? Both these gentlemen held their appointment for decades past the age when they would have been forced to retire. How? They were owed political favors by members of Congress who, once a year would pass bills, exempting them from the obligation to retire. Its proof, so far as I am concerned, that the holders of offices like Director of the FBI are politicians.
You realize that in Commonwealth countries the Governor-General and Lieutenant-Governors are appointees?
The individuals in the UK House of Lords and the Canadian Senate are all appointees.
Remember, in the US context, a surprising number of the senior appointments that are the POTUS's to appoint, have to be approved by Congress. Proof, I suggest, that those appointed are politicians.
In totalitarian countries, and traditional monarchies, all, or almost all, senior post are appointed.
Yes, sometimes those appointed to head agencies are individuals who rose through the ranks of their agencies. But, it would be a mistake to consider those individuals to be mere "civil servants". In general the guy or gal who starts at an entry level job, may start as a mere "civil servant", but as they rise in their agency, as they come closer to the level where the politicians who appoint the directors are -- when the directors aren't outsiders -- they have to learn to be politicians. I suggest, in the US context, it is rare for someone from within to be appointed director, if they hadn't already become politicized. Very rarely a careerist will be appointed who doesn't know how to schmooze with the other politicians. These individuals terms are completely ineffective, and they are likely to have their term end early or to resign, early.
Consider Eric Shinseki, who was Chief of Staff of the Army for the final two years of the Clinton administration and the first two years of Bush 43's administration. He had tried to totally reorganize the army, to prepare it for post-cold-war conflicts. Bush and his advisors didn't like Shenseki. The appointment is a four year appointment. But, just over two years into his term they announced his replacement. Unprecedented, the choice of replacement usually being made shortly before the appointment. I felt sorry for him, because his plans seemed wise, and he was turned into a lame duck. Chief of Staff is always the last appointment in an officer's career. But, Shenseki's political career wasn't over, as Obama appointed him Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
The officers on the Joint Chiefs regularly testify before various Congressional committees. So many of their duties are political -- like lobbying for funding, participating in choosing contractors. Look at George Marshall, who went from the JCS to Secretary of State.
IMO the shortcut WP:POLITICIAN was poorly chosen. Judges don't fit under the term "politician". IMO the shortcut politician should be deprecated, in favor of something like "WP:OFFICEHOLDERS". Geo Swan (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: some police agencies have a military structure, with all their personnel given military-type ranks, from private to general. This was the case with the Romanian Police until 2002 - a date you can confirm, among other places, here, in the Interior Ministry's magazine. The passage you quoted, given that it's unsourced, is worthless: I do hope you realize, just short of a decade into your Wikipedia career, that content needs to be verified in order to be considered legitimate. (And in any event, the passage says he was made a general "following his appointment", which happened in January 2001.)
I said, and I think this is a common understanding, that WP:POLITICIAN refers to "executives and legislators". I did not say "elected officials", I realize that appointed legislators exist, so kindly refrain from lecturing me on that point. And I'm sorry, but no matter how much you push this point, you won't convince me that the US Ambassador to Bangladesh is a "politician" simply because he's subject to (unanimous) Senate confirmation. Of what party is he a member? What elected office has he held? What speeches has he given, rallies attended, PACs established, voters interacted with? That's how politics happens in America, and although the man is probably notable by virtue of being a US Ambassador, he's not a politician just because the Constitution happens to require Senate confirmation for him.
You are correct to say that many apparently non-political posts do require a fair amount of politicking - let's also mention General Eisenhower. But a) that doesn't make them politicians in the normal sense and b) people like, say, Hoover have had multiple books written about them. Sandu barely has a newspaper article mentioning him. At some point, it would be wise to come to terms with the lack of sources for this BLP and somehow address that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You acknowledge that WP:Politician applies to executives and legislators. Political appointees, who are appointed to be the directors of Federal agencies are executives.
- With regard to ambassadors, there already is a special purpose notability guideline for them -- WP:DIPLOMAT. You directed us to the biography for a particular ambassador to Pakistan. Let me instead guide you to the articles on the USA's most recent Ambassadors to Canada.
1. Bruce Heyman, Wall Street tycoon and lobbyist;
2. David Jacobson, Obama associate and donor;
3. David Wilkins, loyal Republican who lost an election;
4. Paul Cellucci, loyal Republican who lost an election;
5. Gordon Giffin, formerly a senior aide to Senator Sam Nunn
6. James Blanchard, loyal Democrat who lost an election;
- So far as I am concerned the former ambassadors parachuted in to be Ambassador to Canada who were lobbyists or political donors should also be considered politicians. Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The given sources don't seem enough to meet GNG, but I don't know about whether his papers are enough to show notability. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I do question the judo claims (which were not sourced to the subject) because there is a Florin Sandu who's a judoka, but we can see here [55] that it's a different person since he was 3rd in the national under 20 heavyweight competition in 2005 when the subject of this article would have been 55 years old. Finding sources was difficult because most of them refer to the footballer. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I included this on the Military sorting because he was appointed a Brigadier General, and I remember those on the military wikiproject argue that Generals are inherently notable. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while we debate whether an agency head is necessarily notable, I'd like to stress a more basic flaw with this article: it fails WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
Such sources are entirely absent from the article, and until they are adduced, we cannot take any of its claims at face value. As it happens, I did find one reliable source concerning Sandu: an article mentioning the fact that he's now an attorney, and that one of his clients is a Gypsy mafia boss. Interesting, to be sure, but that doesn't do very much in terms of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources".
So I ask again: where are the sources? Until that rather crucial question is answered, this cannot really be considered a valid article, especially keeping WP:BLP in mind. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the WP:GNG, and we recognize that there are special cases, for which we have about a dozen special notability guideline. Paper encyclopedia cover political office holders at the National level even if they had absolutely zero accomplishments of note. Encyclopedias, both paper, and wiki, do this for comprehensiveness. If you chose to have a gap for the one office holder who accomplished nothing it looks to the reader like the information about that office holder is being censored. It is my interpretation that the special notability guidelines over-ride and supercede the GNG in the relatively rare case they apply. If Sandu fulfills the criteria of one or two special notability guideline why would it be relevant if he doesn't fulfill the criteria of the GNG?
- With regard to police forces that use military rank, follow military discipline, and receive military training, those police forces are military forces, or at least, paramilitary forces. Canada has only one national police force, the RCMP. The RCMP was founded as the North West Mounted Police, and its military roots are clear to anyone. It was founded in reaction to the Northwest Rebellion, and its troopers were taught to fight like mounted cavalry. Canada contribution to the Boer War was a contingent of RCMP. They were not employed as military police, they were employed as long distance cavalry scouts.
- If a police officer holds a military style rank I don't know why we wouldn't consider that WP:SOLDIER applies to him or her. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he was inspector-general of police for a national police force then he is quite clearly notable. A police general is as notable as an army general; any attempt to claim otherwise is utterly illogical. Let's suggest that the articles on directors of the FBI (a much smaller agency) should be deleted and see the response! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The FBI isn't a national police force, not in the way the Romanian Police is (or the Police national, or the Policía Nacional, or the Polizia di Stato). And a fairly major difference between FBI directors and Sandu is that there are copious references about the latter, but barely anything about the former. However, as it seems you aren't concerned with reliable sources, and are content to accept unverified content about a living person at face value, I suppose that argument doesn't hold water with you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The FBI is a national law enforcement agency in exactly the same way that the Romanian Police is. It is not a police force (and I didn't say it was), but both of them are most certainly law enforcement agencies. It is also considerably smaller, as I said. Are you saying the FBI is more important than the Romanian Police or are you just trying to split hairs? I really do suggest you avoid that, particularly concerning law enforcement with someone who knows about law enforcement. Do you know why there's more about the directors of the FBI? Because the USA dumps everything on the internet; most countries don't. That doesn't mean Americans in senior government positions are any more notable. Since you don't know me, your last sentence is patronising and beneath contempt. Keep it civil. Am I "content to accept unverified content about a living person at face value"? No. But a quick internet search will confirm that Sandu was indeed head of the Romanian Police (e.g. [56]). That means he's clearly notable enough for an article. The quality of the article is irrelevant to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Necrothesp.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 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 11:57, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp, clearly notable as a head of a national police force, and at least that can be established by reliable sources. —innotata 07:36, 8 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EUROMICRO

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD was closed because in 2 weeks as no consensus it had attracted only one comment. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been nominated for deletion twice before (speedy and prod) by two different editors, but considered not to meet that criteria/possibly be notable. It has been tagged for notability for over six years without resolution. It would be good if this time there were more responses or it is relisted enough times to get a response - as this has been tagged for notability for more than 6 years, it is time it was resolved. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. A publication of Euromicro, the Journal of Systems Architecture, has an ISI impact factor and therefore satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NJournals. I also found this. Its other publications also seem to be widely cited. The lack of response to the last AfD may indicate a "silent consensus" that Euromicro is notable. James500 (talk) 12:39, 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 03:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom. A journal is affiliated to Euromicro, so what? NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not just any journal, it is a notable journal. James500 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete—This is a significant organization, but I don't see a path to establishing that it's a notable one. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the journal is notable (and, unless I am mistaken, WP:NJournals seems to say that this one is) the organisation that produced it is automatically notable. We have always accepted that people can inherit notability from their publications. Putting the journal and the organisation that produced it into one article is how we normally handle borderline cases. Or at least it was in April of last year when I last discussed this. James500 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James500. I see you created Wikipedia:Notability (publishing). Can you give me a pointer to where this was discussed? Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is just an essay that expresses what I think is an obvious application of GNG and LISTN. But IIRC, North Louisiana Historical Association was kept at AfD largely on the strength of NJournals. James500 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Strike that, looking back at the AfD, it was an argument advanced by a number of veteran editors. James500 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Update: The essay is now a draft proposal. James500 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Publication through Elsevier and IEEE argue strongly for both standards of WP:NONPROFIT.
SBaker43 (talk) 07:07, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree SBaker43's argument. A journal of the organization is in sciencedirect [57]. They hold international conferences and the proceedings are cited in many independent sources. Definitely meets the two criteria in WP:NONPROFIT. I am One of Many (talk) 07:03, 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 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Julian

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

An article I'm surprised was never marked for nobility before. This actress as only been in minor roles. Granted the shows are notable, but not her. And she has done nothing since this article started either. Wgolf (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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 16:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Too many images, too many results, though whether they are reliable or not is questionable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:33, 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 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Too many images, too many results" isn't a valid reason to keep!, Anyway I can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NOTEBLP, fails WP:ENT. --Bejnar (talk) 04:32, 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 20:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adlabs Imagica Wrath of the Gods

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

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

Non-notable individual amusement rides/shows that fail WP:GNG. With such names I don't even see why those would be searchable items on WP to keep as redirects. Also nominating Mr India - The Ride. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adlabs Imagica, or better yet, create an article on rides and attractions at Imagica. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:07, 24 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 11:32, 1 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 8 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 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phuntroo

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

filming has not yet begun, it is too soon for an article BOVINEBOY2008 11:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NFF Gaijin42 (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: Sujay Dahake

Delete per failing WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and being TOOSOON. It might be mentioned and sourced in the director article at Sujay Dahake.[58] Advise author to study MOS:FILM to learn article format, and WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NF to understand sourcing requirements. Allow recreation in proper format only after filming has been confirmed and only if the production gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:37, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Stefanakos

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

Doesen't appear notable. The Lightning Strikes! ^{Try me!} 11:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - player played at the highest level of domestic football in his country and multiple times for his country in international competition, clearly a notable player -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a Greek international, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has seven international caps for his country at senior level, therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some votes suggest that the article should be kept because you like it. That doesen't work. No conclusions yet.The Lightning Strikes! ^{Try me!} 22:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they're actually saying it should be kept because he passes notability guidelines! It does in fact appear to be you who is saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since you have provided no valid reason for deletion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - The Tharros article is significant coverage in a reliable source and as a Greek international player he easily satisfies NFOOTBALL. Nominator should have done a GNG check (or looked at the Tharros article though a web translation tool) before nominating a few-day-old article that clearly passes a SNG. Jogurney (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for Greece.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY due to international appearances. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly states he had a few starts for Greek national team. Why then does User:Lightning BOLT! claim he isn't notable? Is the article wrong? Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 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 Keep(non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuous (2014 film)

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

Non-notable film, notability is not inherited from those involved in the film BOVINEBOY2008 11:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the following sources:

Erik Estrada coming to Middle Georgia churches in The Telegraph (Macon, Georgia)
Faith Lutheran to screen film with Erik Estrada in Highlands Today (edition of The Tampa Tribune)
Christian movie showing to draw Jessica Lynch, Erik Estrada in Highlands Today
Erik Estrada’s next faith-based movie to shoot in Rock Hill in Rock Hill Herald (Rock Hill, South Carolina)
Virtuous film premieres at Sunset Theatre in The Courier-Tribune (Asheboro, North Carolina)
North Etowah hosts 'Virtuous' film in The Daily Post-Athenian (Athens, Tennessee)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per research by Erik. IE: WP:NRVE. While the nominator is correct in that notability is usually not "inherited" BUT, if such involvement brings the film significant coverage, the notability is established. Point here being Bovineboy, that no one is asserting the project is notable simply because of those involved, but rather is notable through the resulting coverage. The participants become secondary considerations to the coverage itself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the case that the article was deproded for exactly that justification. However, I do appreciate all the research provided by Erik. I am happy to withdraw this nomination. BOVINEBOY2008 07:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, I found these sources by choosing "Past year" in Google's search tools when searching for keywords for the film. One can choose that or a date range to focus on a certain period during which a film may have been covered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BIG thanks to Bovineboy for his withdrawal and to Erik for his diligent research. The 65 character (14 word) stub that was first nominated has gone through some easy changes to become so-far (with a 20x plus expansion) a 1786 character (295 word) C-class article to better serve the project. Anyone want to suggest a nice DYK?? . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I de-prodded it, as I thought that a film with this cast would likely be notable. It might turn out to be this year's Heaven's Gate, but who knows? I thought Ride Along was going to bomb, and while it got only 18 % on Rotten Tomatoes, it made lots of cash. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch and thanks Bearian. This now qualifies for a polite and happy speedy keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:54, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School of Thinking

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

Apparently promotional split article from article on author(s). The extraordinary claim for the number of students needs direct citation to be considered. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I removed the un-referenced statement about the number of students as such strong claims clearly need to be backed up by sources. Sources that I was unable to locate. The article is clearly promotional and I suggest ought be speedily deleted accordingly. AlanS^talk 13:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like spam Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there were multiple sentences of advertising about this school on the page. i removed those in my edit on September 30. i have deleted this content before so i think the could page be watched from spam additions.Diem dior shar (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)'Keep but watch from spam additionsDiem dior shar (talk) 14:27, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 2 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious spam is obvious. I just took a spin through the Australian Google, and couldn't find a single news source. Why was this relisted, when the only objection came from a SPA? Nha Trang 20:42, 17 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. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works of fiction set in 2034

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

~~I know this is part of a series, so the same may apply to all (future) years in this series, I have only looked at this one.~~ I have now nominated all future years in the same vein:

There is no link between these works of fiction, the year 2034 is a random "near future" year which could have been 2035 or 2036 without any change to the works. The year 2034 is not a defining characteristic. "Works set in an alternate Earth where Hitler won WWII" would be a list of works with a clear, important (plot-defining) characteristic linking them. But being placed in the same future year? Or worse, looking at Works of fiction set in 2035, just having some plot element happening in that year? These are lists of basically unrelated trivia. Fram (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also expand to whole series of these (from the makeshift navbox at top). We have categories "XXXX in fiction" that does this job just fine, as these lists are not providing any commentary about the year and just serve to list the works. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll expand this nomination to include all future years (I can imagine that different arguments apply to fiction set in the past...). Fram (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this entire article scheme: the future articles named here, and the rest as found at Works of fiction by year (and that parent article). This is a trivial intersection better handled by categories (if at all), and which presents a litany of problems with inclusion and maintenance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge back into year articles). It's clearly inappropriate as categories, per WP:CATDEF. I believe the claim that works of fiction are inappropriate in year articles was a very weak consensus, and might be revisited. (I must admit the same applies to "Category:Establishments in yyyy"....) I'm not going to emphasize WP:RETAIN, as I consider that a weak argument, but it is an argument. The decision of whether a work of fiction should be included needs more specific guidelines, but so do the criteria for factual events which appear in year articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, RETAIN is about keeping one variation of English (e.g. Australian English or British English) in an article. I don't see the relevance here. And whether the cats should exist or not is a separate discussion, keeping the lists or deleting should not be dependent on the existence or fate of the cats. Fram (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, it was WP:PRESERVE. I should know better than to trust guidelines pointed to by the Kalamazoo Kid. It's still not a good argument, but it is an argument based on policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the info that X or Y is set in 2034 (or whatever year) is not lost, it is mentioned in the article about X or about Y. The bringing together of the information on one page is undone, but that is because it is not a notable combined topic. But no information is actually lost or removed from Wikipedia in this case. Fram (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the articles on their respective years. That is, have a 2028 in fiction section in the article 2028 and merge Works of fiction set in 2028 into [[2028]. Khemehekis (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Users can merge into years if they feel like it, but I don't consider it important. As the nominator has fairly pointed out, almost all future settings are vague and hypothetical, unlike historical settings. Theoretically, I'd consider keeping near-future categories in order to allow for works that posit specific counterfactuals (eg. "Three years into Mitt Romney's first term...") but it might be too hard to enforce and regardless, doesn't seem to be the case for any of the works currently on the lists for the next few years. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bit too indiscriminate. Although somewhat better than "fictional works that feature a protagonist named Joe", these works are still very loosely connected to each other through what is not a defining feature of the work itself. An encyclopedic article could be written about near future settings, and I'm slightly surprised that we don't have one. Notable examples could be listed and discussed there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's too WP:SYNTHy and too WP:INUNIVERSEy. Bondegezou (talk) 10:42, 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 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Felpi

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

Non-notable boxer - does not come close to meeting WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Fighting at Madison Square Garden does not make you notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. The only sources are links to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 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 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle Herd Skirmish

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

A minor altercation happened, just like on nearly every day in this period. No reliable independent source has given this skirmish significant attention (there are eyewitness accounts in published diaries, but these aren't independent of course), the name "Cattle Herd Skirmish" is a Wikipedia-only invention for a cattle raid that hasn't received a name in any source I could find.

The book "Battles and Skirmishes of the Great Sioux War, 1876-1877: The Military View",[59] 258 pages from the Univeristy of Oklahoma Press about the battles and skirmishes of this war, does not mention this skirmish, which seems rather definite proof that this is not a notable skirmish and more an attempt at writing history and conducting WP:OR than actually summarizing the existing secondary sources, which Wikipedia should do. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is getting really silly. Next up: Cavalry Officer Tongue Burning While Drinking Coffee. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable on its own. It was obviously part of a larger campaign and as such could be mentioned in that article, so I would not oppose a merge. Intothat darkness 15:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor event with no legitimate historical significance. I'd safely consider Jerome Green's book (the one cited by Fram) definitive in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary; he's a significant expert in this period. And he doesn't mention it. The name given by this article is original research as well, a wholly novel coinage. Mostly, this just serves as a coatrack to elevate the importance of John Wright. I don't have access to the 1961 book used to reference the claim that he's considered the Great Sioux War's first casualty, but I can't find that assertion in the sources I have at hand. In the event this is deleted, references to it need to be excised from the several places they've been added in other articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 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. Will userfy if the article's author requests so at my talk page. Deor (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian J. Costello

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

Non-notable author. Sources seem to be about a place, not him, nothing on Google, nothing that supports any of the text. Publisher of his book appears to be purely local history imprint Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are so vague, that you can not check them. Seeing his massive field of knowledge, it seems a hoax or at least massively overblown to me. The Banner talk 09:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Costello is a well recognized local historian of the Pointe Coupee area in Louisiana. His works have misty centered on Pointe Coupee but have also included New Orleans and South Louisiana. At least one work, the Flood of 1912, is of interest to the entire Mississippi River region. Everything I read on the page of his bio is correct. He has been honored by the Creole Heritage Center at the university in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Perhaps instead of being called an American author, a better title would be a Louisiana historian. But I do not think it should be deleted. Our company, Avoyelles Publications dba ^[4], published some his early books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.119.7.235 (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.gencon.com/press/2014recordattendance
^ http://www.gencon.com/experience/etspotlight#Marooned
^ http://indienation.fm/an-interview-with-marooned/
^ thelouisianapurchase.net

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local author. filomena source is a dead/expired link.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a hoax, but sources have not yet been provided to show this prolific author's notability much beyond the borders of Pointe Coupee Parish. Google searches turn up a lot of mentions, and in there might be substantive reviews or other indications of notability. Maybe this could be userfied or sent to draft space for further sourcing and development, if the creator is interested. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 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 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Genius

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

Rottentomatoes shows zero published reviews for this film. It appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). It has been listed as unsourced for nearly 2 years and no reliable in-depth sources seem to exist. (Note that WP:NF explicitly disallows comprehensive database listings such as IMDB or Rottentomatoes as counting towards notability). I previously tried prodding this, but that was removed without improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment: I just began work on this and find it a bit difficult to believe that a film with so many notables is completely unsourcable. Someone somewhere must have written of it. I'll continue and report back. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, but I didn't come up with much. Other than bare directory listings: A three-sentence review in VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever [60]. A brief mention in a widely republished AP article about Wendy Malick. [61] A paragraph in an about.com interview with Danica McKellar. [62]. A passing mention that Shirley Jones is in the film, in a Variety column. [63] Perhaps you'll have better results. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per meeting WP:NF#Other evidence of notability and having commercial airing more than five years after first screening. See: TV Weekly - August 21, 2011. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just a little more coverage of it under its pre-release title: Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 1 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 8 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. Deor (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jave

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

I had this as a prod but now looking at it-this seems more like an AFD. a person whose band has no page even. (only source was to Facebook) Wgolf (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Also oddly there is a tag from 2012 on the article which is more then 2 years before this article was made. Wgolf (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:15, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. I took time to find references to reliable sources that establish its notability, all to no avail. Subject fails WP:GNG. The truth is, he is not notable. Article about him here is just WP:TOOSOON. Wikicology (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete definitely fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 9 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheillah Molelekwa

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. This one already got covered in Time magazine wearing her national costume. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:25, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trackinfo.--Tomwsulcer (talk)`

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!*} 04:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be fairly substantial coverage of this individual. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 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 11:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winfrida Dominic

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on past outcomes and growing consensus that Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:23, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 19:48, 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!*} 04:13, 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 08:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome orchestra

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

There are no reliable sources to establish the notability. Google news search returns no hits [64], and Google Books search also returns no hits [65]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Through the use of inline citations I hope to have added more strength to the article and a better overwiew of independent sources. Kind regards Arthur Kegels (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page with independent sources and hope and trust this will apply as reliable and relevant. Lonesome Orchestra is relevant internationally partly because of their work with The City of Prague Philharmonic. Kind regards, Arthur Kegels (talk) 07:31, 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!*} 04:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was stated as being an orphan. This is no longer the case as both Emmy Verhey's article and City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra refer to the Lonesome orchestra page. Arthur Kegels (talk) 19:11, 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, Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 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 09:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Branton

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

Based on what information I could find, I'm not convinced this author meets WP:AUTHOR's notability standards. One of the two press citations (the Independent) is broken and I couldn't find a correct reference at the Independent. That leaves only the Guardian. Second, giving away a free download may or may not be innovative enough to make him notable. Finally, the Amazon author page for Matthew Branton suggests that it's merging together multiple authors with similar names, so it's hard to find evidence of notability here either. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:09, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 19:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon page for Matthew Branton refers to the novelist and author Matthew Branton, and to one movie featuring the actor Matthew Branton, a completely different individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manytrueroutes (talk • contribs) 09:01, 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!*} 04:11, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seungpil Yu

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

Insufficient evidence for notability. Head of non-notable company; other refs are routine notices. DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:03, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG:, you're the resident expert on academics, can you shed any light on, if any, inherent notability of "Chief Director of Foundation at Sejong University"? I wouldn't consider the Korea Herald piece to be a "routine notice", but presuming the subject doesn't meet PROF, this single instance of significant, independent coverage doesn't meet GNG either. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:36, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not clear (to me) that the company is not notable. It would be worth confirming this statement (from a Columbia Business School event bio): "Under his leadership, Yuyu has experienced significant growth and was recognized by Forbes magazine as Asia’s 200 Best Under A Billion in 2006." Seems to be listed on a stock exchange per A000220:KSC summary - FT.com. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:42, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Season (Israel & New Breed album)

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

Speedy delete was declined on this article. Once I've removed the promo-speak there's little left other than an extremely excessive list of credits. I can't find anything in the form of reliable reviews or coverage about this album (it's released in the internet age). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 19:54, 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!*} 04:11, 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 09:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A-Eiropa

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

This unreferenced article doesn't indicate how they meet WP:NBAND Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fairly well known band in Latvia, just checking what links to their article on Latvian Wikipedia shows that they've been on several local charts and have been nominated for national music award several times ~~Xil (talk) 10:31, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 19:57, 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!*} 04:10, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Alex March

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

A musician that seems to have not a lot of info other then a interview-nothing really links to here either. Wgolf (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 19:58, 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!*} 04:04, 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 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solidiance

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

That they have entered into an "alliance" with notable firms does not make them notable. The refs are mere notices, or PR, or things they themselves have written. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 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!*} 04:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I would say redirect but not sure what to, as for now delete. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 27 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 11:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Reads too much like a PR piece of some random company, failing to see the notability here, as others said. RegistryKey (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a few pages which mention them in passing, or cite them. Neither of these are enough to establish notability. Everything else I found were promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:00, 5 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 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VSN Video Stream Networks

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

Relatively minor prize, an nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per DGG and Fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 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!*} 04:03, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Unotable, though it has been around for nearly 25 years. Wgolf (talk) 02:08, 5 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 keep. New sources added to establish notability Philg88 ^♦talk 04:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of happiness

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

The one apparently independent source, psychology today, just seems to mention it among many other things in an article that gives no references. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 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!*} 04:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting content does not belong at what is essentially a neologism article. Shii (tock) 06:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a moment's work to find more sources such as the British Journal of Clinical Psychology or Scientific American. Note that I'm merging in cherophobia which is the same topic per The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties. We should prefer the title fear of happiness as it is plain English, and not jargon or a neologism. Andrew (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than just a neologism. Well-enough sourced. Needs mention at happiness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well referenced, but it can further be improved. Also it should expand to include physiological characters, like symptoms and treatment, besides cultural thinking. Planet Star 22:26, 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. Consensus indicates failure to satisfy WP:PROF/WP:GNG. Article can be recreated should that change at some future date. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Pestun

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

An early-career physicist who fails WP:PROF: no evidence of broad impact in his field, no major awards, no high-profile academic posts, etc. He's worked at some fancy schools, but notability is not inherited. He may have promise, but it's too soon to say whether he will one day be notable. Lagrange 613 00:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your claim -- he does have a very, very high-profile academic position. IHES is no joke. He is a permanent professor there. This is perhaps equivalent to being a permanent professor at the Institute for Advanced Study. Pestun hence complies at least with criterion 6 in the list of WP:PROF. --Zatrp (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 6 is about holding a "highest-level" post, i.e. being president of a university or a society. See WP:PROF#C6. Lagrange 613 00:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At IHES, permanent professorship is indeed the highest academic position available. Other positions, like president or director, would be of a more symbolic/administrative nature. --Zatrp (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't believe a full professorship alone, even at IHES, is enough for WP:PROF. And in a high-citation subject, his Google scholar profile [66] shows only one big hit, a good start but not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. (Incidentally, although GS shows this paper as an arXiv preprint, it has been reliably published, in Communications in Mathematical Physics 2012.) Is there something else besides these two things that I'm missing? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google is kind enough to provide his h-index; 14 in a high hindex field. Buh bye. Abductive (reasoning) 23:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those claiming that IHES permanent professorship is not enough should produce an example of such a professor that was not notable in the past, I think. That would be very surprising -- so much so that it would make him notable! --Zatrp (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This invocation of the interesting number paradox is cute. Were it valid then Wikipedia would have to have on article on every member of every ordered set of people containing at least one notable person. But fortunately it's not, because notability depends on an article's topic, not analogy to other hypothetical article topics. Notability is not the absence of a non-notable point of reference. It's a positive quality, not a negative one. Lagrange 613 00:09, 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!*} 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the sourcing required to meet WP:GNG nor do I think he meets WP:PROF. 131.118.229.17 (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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lieze Stassen

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

Apparently non-notable singer. Blatant COI, so obvious that even Wikipediocracy has noticed it. Eligible as G11? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A previous version of this article claimed that Stassen won a South African Music Award in 1997, which, if confirmed, would surely make her notable. Unfortunately I can't find any list of past winners at the SAMA web site. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 20:06, 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 00:39, 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!*} 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been discussed in a number of notable Afrikaans media (Beeld, Vrouekeur, etc)--Michael (talk) 17:43, 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 consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsakana Nkandih

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~Move to neutral I am unpersuaded by arguments from precedent, given that it's entirely possible that the precedent is not, in fact, in line with actual policy. ~~And that is, in my view, the case here: this contestant (and many others) easily faily WP:GNG and thus the articles should be deleted.~~ I also find it utterly unseemly that "Trackinfo" is attempting to get another user banned from AFD, simply because s/he doesn't like that user's nominations. Very bad form indeed. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain convinced that such pageants should be treated like reality programs are, with contestants being redirected to the main article, it's clear that there are multiple sources for the contestants. I'm still unconvinced that simply because there are sources, that an article is merited, particularly given WP:ONEEVENT, but am switching my recommendation to "neutral", based on the fact that I was mistaken about the lack of sources. I do, of course, reserve the right to renominate this article (and others) at a future date, using more apt reasoning than the current nomination presents. My apologies for not looking deeper into the sourcing before making my comments above. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I would, I added more sources. I could easily go on, but why lard up the article? My point was that The Banner deliberately chose to ignore the additional available sources because this series of nominations are his way of making a WP:POINT, and while a Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants discussion he is involved in is going on. In my book, that is bad faith. On Wikipedia, we are supposed to deal with facts, whether it is discussing known properties of a chemical reaction or talking about whether a beauty queen is important to some people. The Banner misrepresented the absence of sources. LHM, did you look? Trackinfo (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my friend, you are making a WP:POINT by accusing me of all kinds of bad things. Just admit that you don't like my nominations and that you prefer personal attacks above arguments. Despite what ever happened, I am still not convinced about her notability as notability is never inherited. The Banner talk 15:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added since nomination help confirm WP:GNG is met.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:43, 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 00:44, 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!*} 03:55, 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 09:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Radonjić

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming her credentials can be verified with reliable sources, Keep based on past outcomes and growing consensus that Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nominator is making a wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. I've had to explain to the Nom the meaning of WP:Before and the meaning of bad faith. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please stop with the personal attacks. The Banner talk 21:21, 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 00:56, 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!*} 03:52, 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). Due to limited input after two relistings with only one user responding to the nomination, closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Singh Sethi

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

As per WP:BEFORE I have attempted to find reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage, and have not found any secondary or tertiary reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage. Futhermore, the subject of this article does not appear to meet the more stringent notability guideline of WP:AUTHOR; although the subject has received some minor awards from their alma maters it does not appear to meet the requirement set forth part 4, subpart c of "has won significant critical attention" as the awards are not at the same level as national level awards such as the Pulitzer Prize, Caldecott Medal, or any of the other literary awards listed by the ALA. Therefore, although the individual is an active advocate, writer of opinion, and occasional panelist that is sought to elicit opinion on national news networks, as the subject themselves has not received significant coverage about themselves it appears that the subject fails WP:GNG & AUTHOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello, RightCowLeftCoast. I appreciate your feedback which has helped me to improve the article. I have rewritten it and added a number of sources. This article fulfills WP:NOTEBLP. Arjun Singh Sethi's writings on a variety of topics have been cited in both works of scholarship and a number of media outlets and all comments below are now fully referenced in the article.

His expertise on matters related to the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting was cited in the scholarly journal Sikh Formations: Religion, Culture, Theory. It has also led him to be interviewed by the BBC and HuffPost Live and he has been cited on the subject by Al Jazeera, The Wire, Newser, India Abroad, and Tikkun. In addition, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times published his essays on the same topic, works which were then syndicated by papers around the country.

Additionally, he has been cited by the Yale Law Journal. Furthermore, his writings on the landmark Gideon v. Wainwright case were cited by both the Texas Court system and The National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees also reprinted one of his essays in full on its website. Finally his essays have been published by notable media outlets such as The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Al Jazeera, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, The Guardian, USA Today, and the Huffington Post.

Given the number and quality of references, including secondary sources, this article satisfies Wikipedia:Notability and thus should not be deleted.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:12, 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 00:59, 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!*} 03:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have trimmed and reorganized the article. I am providing a new list below. Arjun Singh Sethi fulfills the following areas of Wikipedia:Notability (people) for creative professionals or WP:AUTHOR:

He is “widely cited by peers” (#1) and as a subject matter expert, his works have garnered “significant critical attention” (#4):

In Scholarship:

a. Yale Law Journal: Shah, Reema.”Beating Blackwater: Using Domestic Legislation to Enforce the International Code of Conduct for Private Military Companies.‘’Yale Law Journal’’ Vol. 23, #7 May 2014.

b. Sikh Formations: Religion, Culture, Theory: Thobani, Sunera.”RACIAL VIOLENCE AND THE POLITICS OF NATIONAL BELONGING: THE WISCONSIN SHOOTINGS, ISLAMOPHOBIA AND THE WAR ON TERRORIZED BODIES.”Sikh Formations: Religion, Culture, Theory.’’ Volume 8, Issue 3, 2012.

c. Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice, Clarke, Theresa. "State Institutions Without Walls: Chronic Homelessness for People With Mental Illness Can Be Brought to an End." Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice, 16 (2003).

In the media:

a. CNN states that he is "a frequent commentator on civil rights and social justice-related issues."^[1]

b. BBC: ^[2]

b2: KPFA: Flashpoints, KPFA, 94.1 FM KPFA interview, September 4, 2014.

C. Huffington Post^[3]

D. Al Jazeera^[4]

E. The Wire^[5]

F. Newser^[6]

G. India Abroad,^[7]

H. Tikkun Daily,^[8]

I. Truthdig,^[9]

J. Daily Kos,^[10]

K. TeleSUR,^[11] and

L. RealClearPolicy (the sister site to RealClearPolitics).^[12]^[13]

Note: The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Al Jazeera, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, The Guardian, USA Today, and the Huffington Post have all published work by him. While primary sources, these are notable outlets - see main article for these references.

By non-profits and legal organizations:

a. National Partnership for Women & Families^[14]

b. The National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel^[15]^[16]

c. Texas Court System^[17]

Since this fulfills Wikipedia:Notability (people) for creative professionals or WP:AUTHOR, this article should not be deleted. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: Since the page was created on September 4, 2014, it has received 1438 views as of September 28, 2014. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC):[reply]

Additional Comment: Up to 1520 views as of September 29, 2014. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ CNN Editor (Feb 26, 2014). "Editor's note to "Spying on Muslims is legal?"". CNN. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ Ash, Lucy (August 21, 2012). "Interview on the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting". Outlook BBC World Service.
^ Takruri, Dena (August 5, 2013). "Hatred In America One Year After Sikh Shooting". HuffPost Live.
^ "#NotYourTerrorist tackles anti-Muslim prejudice". Al Jazeera. March 27, 2014.
^ Randall, Eric (August 9, 2012). "Five Best Thursday Columns". The Wire.
^ Johnson, John (August 9, 2012). "How to Fight Bigotry? Take Lesson From Sikhs". Newser.
^ Haniffa, Aziz (August 17, 2012). "Profiling and monitoring of violence against Sikhs have to be treated separately". India Abroad.
^ Faruqi, Saadia (March 4, 2014). "Why Everyone Should Care about NYPD's Surveillance of Muslims". ‘’Tikkun Daily’’.
^ Kelly, Alexander (August 31, 2014). "Inappropriate Government Watchlisting Threatens Innocent Lives". Truthdig. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Watson, Liz (November 26, 2012). "Worse Treatment for Pregnant Workers: It's Ironic, Don't You Think?". ‘’Daily Kos’’.
^ "9/11 and the Neo-Conservative Agenda". ‘’TeleSUR’’. September 10, 2014.
^ "RealClearPolicy Morning Edition". ‘’RealClearPolicy’’ (the sister site to RealClearPolitics). November 26, 2012.
^ "RealClearPolicy Morning Edition". ‘’RealClearPolicy’’ (the sister site to RealClearPolitics). December 24, 2013.
^ "Pregnant Women Need More Protection in the Workplace, Opinion Piece Says". National Partnership for Women & Families. November 27, 2012.
^ "IMMIGRATION GENERAL - MEDIA". National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel.
^ "Links to Gideon Anniversary-Related Resources". National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel. 2013.
^ "Gideon vs. Wainwright 50th Anniversary Media Coverage" (PDF). Texas Court System (the judicial system for the state of Texas). 2013.

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 / 06:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Moreau

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

The link that was here went to a spam site. No notability (also the French language one links to a different person then this one) Trying to find anything on him right now Wgolf (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the creator of the page, mainly because he has the same name as me, different spelling. I discovered him, featured in a special section published by Marketing Magazine to sell the new TV season to advertisers. He was a featured graphic in the French language station section. Here's a page about him, from another website: http://www.galadesgrandschefs.ca/richelieu_yamaska/saintjeansurrichelieu/doc/NicolasMoreau.pdf and an interview: http://www.cuisine-plus.tv/cid6489/nicolas-moreau.html but unfortunately lesrecettesdenicolas.com doesn't seem to have been archived by the Wayback Machine. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

-Well thanks, now I'm not sure what to say about the other languages part as I'm unable to delete the French page that links to it that is to a different person (usually it works but it isn't for this guy)Wgolf (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed that. It wasn't actually linked through the Wikidata process, but merely through the old direct-link-in-the-article style of interlanging. Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 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!*} 03:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a shot at ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, but unfortunately the only sources that turned up about him were both titled "Spring & Summer Social Calendar". (Substantive coverage fail, bien sûr.) And I'm having about as much luck as the nominator with Google, too — I'm finding lots of commercial/promotional confirmation that he exists, but not a lot of the reliable independent source coverage necessary to support a WP:BLP on Wikipedia. And the chef doesn't even have an article on fr: either — even though the actor is disambiguated there, the undisambiguated fr:Nicolas Moreau is just a redirect to him rather than an article about the chef or a dab page. So I'm going to have to go with the delete here, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually locate some actual sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 08:07, 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 16:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Zimmerman

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

Had this as a Prod but person deleted it-a player who has yet to go pro yet. Now I think he might need a page soon, but for now way too soon, still in HS. Wgolf (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 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!*} 03:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon. Nothing even close to a claim of notability. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We may need an article on this young man someday, but for now it is way WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeFaces

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted in 2011 after AFD discussion. A new article has been created by an SPA. However, I'm nominating it for discussion rather than speedy deletion as a bit of research suggests that the product may have gained some traction in the Enterprise JavaBeans/Oracle world. I'm a comp. sci. by education but not familiar enough with this area to be able to say for sure whether or not the product has achieved notability Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep PrimeFaces is a commercial product, specifically a JSF (Java Server Faces) implementation. So are IceFaces and RichFaces. If were to go after articles for being commercial, then lets start with Ford and Apple. If JSF is "non notable" and too "specialised"[67], then there are a whole bunch of articles to go after. There are many JSF implementations, but these are the three big and popular ones. Knowing precisely which is the biggest or most popular would need more market research than I can pay for, but these are the three that developers are talking about. Why is PrimeFaces being singled out? Viam Ferream (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can just focus on today's debate, (a) has Java Server Faces become a frequently used product? The Java Server Faces article somewhat implies that it's withered on the vine; (b) are you telling us that PrimeFaces, IceFaces and RichFaces are the three leading implementations of Java Server Faces? (c) can you give us any more color on the breadth of use of the product? Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Has <any Java component> become a frequently used product?"

Java is an 800 pound gorilla. Even its little finger is pretty powerful. What is the official WP mapping for "frequently used" onto WP:N? Is buggy whip deleted yet?

JSF is unfashionable. Thoughtworks[68] don't like it (per the usual WP source for "Why to delete JSF"). Yet Thoughtworks are still paying attention to it, thus it is notable. JSF is the favoured tool of the deeply corporate, straight-down-the-line whatever-Sun-says J2EE web app shop. Even if the hip young things are too busy with JS-based front ends to notice them, these are the apps that probably deliver your utility bill and your credit card statement.

As to which of the JSF implementations are the big names, then you've only got my opinion (as a JSF developer) to go on (for my usual consultancy rates, you can get it in writing instead), but these are the three (and really only these three) that have any sizable discussion of them within the J2EE community. Maybe MyFaces too, just as its Apache's reference implementation.

As to "The WP article has withered", then that's much more because WP is increasingly seen as an irrelevance to the technical community, not that WP has declared that platform to be irrelevant. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Heres some typical programmer discussion about the merits of the 3: [69]. As is entirley typical, some began with Icefaces but found it a bit slow, Primefaces looks to be the eventual leader.

Google Trends for the big 3 JSF [70]

I'm not claiming that JSF is necessarily the way to go to build a web app, or even a Java web app. The "start up" Java world is ignoring it, even if the corporate suit-and-tie world uses it. If JSF is a notable topic though, the big three are Ice, Rich & Prime and there is some indication that PrimeFaces is the favoured leader amongst these. Viam Ferream (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a cursory search comes up with few, if any, reliable sources, but I'll wait for a more in-depth search to decide. Both of you are barking up the wrong tree as far as notability goes. Ansh666 22:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong tree? Viam Ferream (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has been updated to remove any parts close to advertisement. Please review. cagatay.civici 22:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC+3)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 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!*} 03:45, 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 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reddcoin

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted in the past for sparse sourcing, promotional content and failure of WP:GNG. The article is now back, but it does not appear to have been improved since the last deletion discussion. It contains only 3 sources of dubious reliability: one of them is a forum post and two are blog entries on ForexMinute and CryptocoinsNews. The author of the CryptocoinsNews article admits to owning a "small amount" of Reddcoin, so they might not be considered an independent source. Breadblade (talk) 15:06, 8 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 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Forum posts and cryptoblogs aren't reliable sources. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 21:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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 01:34, 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!*} 03:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. The article does not provide coverage from independent reliable sources, and I could find no coverage in a search. Not surprising since the company is less than a year old. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 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 Bryan Woods. More or less a redirect flavored SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her Summer

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. Redirect to director Bryan Woods. One nice review at Quad-City Times and two awards at a minor Des Moines film festival[71] do not push it over the edge for me. Not a bad effort for a student film. I wish the filmmaker luck for the future. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:52, 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 01:36, 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!*} 03:45, 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. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Li

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

This is another instance where it really pains me to bring an article to AfD (because Alina Li is one of my favorite new performers), but...I made a mistake deprodding this because I thought I found some Fanny Award wins for her, but then I realized that those were only nominations ([72] [73]). I couldn't find anything else, so she thus (unfortunately) fails WP:PORNBIO. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:26, 8 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 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She has coverage in AVN and XBIZ, but I'm not sure if this is enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rumor has it she quit porn. Her FreeOnes page lists her Career Status as Retired (Quick Bio Info section on the right). She is also not listed on Spiegler Girls (her agency) anymore. If she quit the business for good, then there will be no more coverage of her in the future and we wouldn't have much to write an article on since her career was so brief. In my personal opinion though, she will probably be back. She is the biggest newcomer in the adult industry this year and will likely be nominated for every Best New Starlet award. I honestly think she has a possibility of winning too if she does return on-time. It's not like this hasn't happened before. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't object to userfication then. (SN: I'm not sure FreeOnes is a reliable source.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, her retirement is just a rumor, but I'm pretty convinced that it's true. The Rob Black Show is certainly not a reliable source and the reliability of FreeOnes is probably as controversial as the reliability of IAFD or IMDB. But we do know for sure that she is no longer available for bookings on Spiegler Girls and her Twitter was deleted. I was one of her followers and I remember her final tweet being an announcement about her selling all of her porn star wardrobe. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If waht Rebecca1990 said about her tweeter is true,i suggest it is better to delete the page.If Alina li quit,it proves Alina li wants to forget her past in the adult film industry.After all,most Chinese people still think sex is a private thing,what she did may be viewed as a disgrace to the country and Chinese people.Also most of porn actresses came to a pityful ending.I wish her the best.竖琴老人(talk) 00:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, Rebecca, I put the reliability of FreeOnes right up there with Boobpedia (which is one of the most badly written wikis I have ever seen, btw). But maybe that's just me. And 竖琴老人, if she indeed retired, that alone isn't a reason for an article to be deleted; plenty of retired porn (as well as mainstream) actors have articles on here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 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 01:46, 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!*} 03:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have rewritten the entire article. I have placed additional sources in the "External links" section (hidden from readers; can only be viewed by editing) so other users can expand the article. I'm honestly just too lazy to read those interviews right now, but I might do it later. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the logical of my original PROD. Still fails PORNBIO, still no independent reliable sourcing, only significant source added is the standard kayfabe promotional interview of no determinable reliability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, AVN and XBIZ are both reliable sources. There are two reliable sources in the article, not just one, one from AVN and one from XBIZ. Both of those sources are independent of the subject. Those interviews aren't "kayfabe" or "promotional". I'm pretty sure Alina Li did not contact AVN and XBIZ and say "Please do an interview on me. I'm new to the industry and I need some exposure." If it worked that way everybody in the industry would do it and AVN and XBIZ would be mostly interviews. There are actually very few interviews in AVN and XBIZ. Interviews actually take place when an editor from either magazine chooses to write and article on someone in the industry. What's promotional about that? If this was a mainstream website and a mainstream actor, no one would make this argument, not even you. Why is it so difficult in our society for people in the sex industry to be taken seriously? AVN and XBIZ are real, reliable news sources with qualified journalists. I'm tired of you dismissing them. Porn is a legal, legitimate business with legitimate news reporters and legitimate award ceremonies, just like in the mainstream film or music industries. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. She fails WP:PORNBIO by a strict interpretation, but I think there is an argument to be made that the exceptionally large amount that has been written about her by porn industry sources such as AVN and XBIZ makes her a special case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:47, 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 No Consensus (WP:NPASR). (Non-admin closure) 69.166.78.85 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Ngurah Oka Ratmadi

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

Since it seems not all mayors are notable on here, here is one that does not seem to be. Has been tagged as a orphan for nearly 6 years. The link that was on here just was about the town not about him. (even the category has just him in it) Wgolf (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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!*} 03:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced BLP. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a reference confirming that he is the mayor. It's not much of a reference, but since he is the mayor of a city of 500,000 people, confirmation is enough IMO. Other references undoubtedly exist that are not in English. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Of note is that the article is no longer an unsourced BLP as of this post.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he's an executive mayor, as I assume he is, and not just a figurehead then the district is large enough to establish his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His article could use some more sources (there are probably a lot more: does he have a page at the Indonesian Wikipedia?), but as a mayor of an area with a large population (500,000+), he's probably notable enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: the correct term is regent, not mayor, and he was not governing a city, but a regency (US, UK people: think county). The article is poorly written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well I am never sure who qualifies on here for mayor notability anymore since I always am finding odd cases where they are not. Wgolf (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In an Indonesian context, 500k people in a regency is not uncommon (in Java, 1 million's not that uncommon either). Whether this makes the individual notable or not, I'm not sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 7 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 16:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zul Vilani

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

His only role is as a voice in a film. (The film granted was nominated for foreign film) This does not quite make him notable though. I say redirect to the film. Wgolf (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - I concur with Wgolf. The articles have not developed since I made them quite a few years ago and thus should be deleted.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 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!*} 03:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless he can be shown to meet WP:NACTOR or have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. —innotata 04:52, 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. WP:BIODELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homeira Riazi

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

An actress with just 3 very minor roles. Seems not to be not notable as of now. Wgolf (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:53, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:23, 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!*} 03:38, 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neda Soltani

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

Not notable independently of Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, per WP:1E. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The circulation of Soltani's photo, and how it affected her life, has received some pretty solid coverage (including the BBC and The Guardian) which is very much independent of the death of her near-namesake, and has made its way into some serious academic discussions (see doi:10.1353/bio.2011.0004 and this book). I think the mistake, as well as the subsequent coverage of her life, is sufficiently notable that the article can be kept. If not, a section in the article on the death would certainly be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim to notability is basically a case of mistaken identity. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- So what? There are lots of cases of mistaken identity which are highly significant and worthy of encyclopedic coverage. The question is whether this is one of them. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's textbook WP:BLP1E having no WP:LASTING significance. Agricola44 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as per J Milburn. Numerous references here. The reason the issue is encyclopedic is the whole evolving power of the Internet, as well as Facebook as a protest medium versus governments, meaning this story, even if dependent on a mistaken identity, will be increasingly important.--Tomwsulcer (talk)`

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 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!*} 03:34, 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 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Marcoux

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

Non notable author. WorldCat holdings for her novels ar 56 (Back to Salem) 43 (A matter of degrees) and 48 (Facades). This is about as trivial as it gets for fiction. Lifesigns and Serendipity are not even in WorldCat . The scientific career is utterly trivial:with only a BS, she would have been a lab assistant. The awards are utterly trivial, or only finalists.

It was written by a known promotional editor, now blocked. see BLPN Though i've brought it here instead of just using G11, I have no objection if another admin wants to speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the sources are either not independent of the subject or do not provide significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Not a notable author. No important works, achievements, or awards, and sources are insignificant and/or promotional. INeverCry 00:37, 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!*} 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:05, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CytoSolve

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; only secondary coverage is passing mentions. Not as relevant, but founder of company also has a bit of a history with Wikipedia (see Talk:Email and Talk:Shiva Ayyadurai). IRW0 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to be copiously referenced, but many of the references are about the founder or papers written by employees (or in some cases unrelated papers which cover techniques used by the company). A search on google news reveals this india times post, but that's mainly about the controversy over "inventing email". Protonk (talk) 14:06, 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 02:55, 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!*} 03:23, 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) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Ali Mondal

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

This is a PROD contested by DGG with the rationale "member of a legislature: all suchare always notable". However, he is merely a member of a gram panchayat (local council for a small village of less than 9000). Extremely unlikely to be notable. —innotata 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 03:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —innotata 03:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —innotata 03:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misinterpreted. He does indeeed notsee,m to have been elected to a national or state legislature. If there are no objections, I'll restore the Prod. & delete accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object. —innotata 05:45, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and also is not a member or former member of a national, state or provincial legislature.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to DGG, the article as written is a bit confusing and could easily be misinterpreted as asserting that he holds a legislative seat if the reader isn't already familiar with the actual terminologies in Indian politics. Regardless, it is indeed the case that local councillors do not pass WP:NPOL, and this article as written is not well-sourced enough to claim WP:GNG. In addition, there's an evident conflict of interest here, as the creator (User:Bittu Mondal Jhuruli) has a username that includes both the subject's surname and the name of the town the subject is asserted to have been born in — and gives his father's name on his user page as "Asher Ali Mondal", virtually guaranteeing that there's some kind of direct family relationship between the subject and the creator. (This would also explain some of the writing tone, such as "It is that he is not so highly educated man so sometimes he got helps from others for what about fault or right for his personal knowledge that certainly improved him to the higher position of politics and political knowledge.") Of course, a COI wouldn't be a fatal flaw if the subject passed a notability rule and could be properly sourced up — but it does the article no favours if those things aren't true. Stone cold delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 7 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 16:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mladen Reljanović

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

non notable person. aspiring filmmaker. declined speedy and declined prod. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of meeting WP:GNG or of notability as an actor. I would also recommend deleting The Strange Mind, which was created by the same author (now blocked) as part of this walled garden. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and my argument here, which is summed up as follows: Essentially there is no coverage for this director and the search results gave me little to suspect that there would be coverage in any language that would not show up in a Google search of the director's name. (IE, Cyrillic Serbian) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 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!*} 03:17, 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 10:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlackCoin

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency whose only reliable source comes from a Wall Street Journal blog amidst a sea of coin blogs. Has only been occasionally edited minorly by IPs. Can't seem to find anything else in terms of a verifiable, reliable source for this coin. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On non-notable cryptocurrency front - Joshua Bouw, Blackcoin Foundation international PR director, recently took part on panels at Huobi and OKCoin events as only altcoin representative

See:

I think that in itself makes it pretty notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.101.88 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some sources that can be used for the article:

In addition, BlackCoin was mentioned by CitiBank as having "significant transactional volume":

https://ir.citi.com/RZh%2B9GHcy3eQvegHG9vuU3r5%2FxkjXBMMfUnULRTyibawadNFQRrrFA%3D%3D

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.237.164 (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a primary source for this coin, the original announcement on BitcoinTalk, referencing the coin's launch date. Greenmon2 - Solved :-) | 10:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcoin was mentioned on Reuters as well - http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/idUKnGNX9m2PlG+1c5+GNW20140409 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.207 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a press release issued by BlackCoin. Breadblade (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations added:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.207 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep For a crypto coin the article seems to have a reasonable amount of sourcing from coin-related blogs as well as a little bit of coverage from real news sources (WSJ and Financial Times bloggers, from the looks of it). Some of the sources only provide trivial mentions, though, and I'm not sure of the reliability of "payments source" and the coin blog. Breadblade (talk)

There is over 50 articles we can cite. Several published in different countries as well. In arabic and portuguese. Will post shortly. Blackcoins BlackHalo was the worlds first smart contracting program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.95.200 (talk) 06:13, 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 04:54, 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 03:09, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Siegel

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

Fails the notability criteria for biographies and the general notability guideline. The current sources are a broken link and two passing mentions. Google turns up interviews, passing mentions in relation to Not Just a Label, social media, and false positives. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete/Comment - Actually, if the interviews are used as the basis for an article with plenty of editorial commentary, then they should be valid sources. While Siegel does give good answers (as here), these are more suitable as sources for an article on Not Just a Label, which does seem like it would pass notability requirements. If this were an article about the company, then it would probably pass muster, but I am not seeing much to show that the founder passes the criteria for an article solely on him. On the other hand, NJAL is clearly drawing a lot of attention, respect and is the reason people are interviewing Siegel, so this article should really have been a brief biographical section on a company page. Mabalu (talk) 02:13, 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 03:04, 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!*} 03:03, 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 16:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Allie

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

Yet another campaign brochure, completely unsourced except for primary sources like his own website, for yet another as-yet-unelected candidate in yet another forthcoming election. As usual, merely being a candidate in an election is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL, and neither is being a city councillor in a city with a population of 41K — if you cannot credibly demonstrate that the candidate was already notable enough for something else to qualify for a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins his seat, but until then he's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unreferenced BLP that appears to take much of its information straight from the subject's campaign site. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither being a member of he Westfield City Council nor being a candidate for the Massachusetts State House provides inherent notability. Furthermore, there are no sources in the article at all. Tiller54 (talk) 17:29, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:POL and is basically an unsourced BLP. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have said to redirect to Massachusetts House of Representatives election, 2014, but it seems no-one has bothered to write that article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 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 16:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claude E. Gagna

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

Not notable, like most associate professors.. The highest citations any of his articles has received is 21, and h= 8. Though I do not judge exclusively or even primarily by h values, numbers like this are so low as to make the lack of notability under WP:PROF very clear, considering that he works in a field where citations are normally quite high. Many people have studied Z-DNA, an extremely important topic; he is not prominent in the field, let alone an authority. The list of awards is nonsense: most of them are student or in-college awards, which do not count toward notability. The only one even worth considering is "NJ inventors Hall of Fame", and I am not convinced that it really has any significance either. "He will be receiving patents in the future" is a clear indication of"not yet notable"

I have consistently for many years tried to increase our deplorably inadequate coverage of notable academic researchers, but not all academic researchers are notable. We need to concentrate on the ones who are. I should note that I tend now to be rather skeptical about academics where the awards or accomplishments are listed in a table: this is not our style, and it indicates that the article was written by someone not familiar with WP, usually someone associated with the subject, or a PR agent for their organization. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When DGG nominates an article for deletion, there is no mistake. Also, article makes no coherent claim of notability for this one of millions of professors in the world. Abductive (reasoning) 23:31, 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!*} 03:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show he's a notable academic, lacks significant independent coverage, and his list of awards is unimpressive. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Nominator's research is persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 16:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fraze Gang

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of meeting notability. Probably still meets CSD A7, under which it was deleted once already, but here we are. —Swpb^talk 21:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:21, 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, NickGibson3900 ^Talk 09:15, 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!*} 02:51, 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 redirect to Not Strictly Rubens. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Key to the Kingdom (Praga Khan song)

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

Song that has been tagged since 2011 with nothing indicating notability. Wgolf (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Not Strictly Rubens, the parent album. Fails WP:NSONG. BethNaught (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 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, NickGibson3900 ^Talk 09:13, 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!*} 02:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Not Strictly Rubens, the parent album per BethNaught. There is no separate coverage of this song in RS, and it fails WP:NSONG. --Bejnar (talk) 20:59, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sobel

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

Local councillor and Parliamentary candidate and, as such, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Some reliable source coverage exists, but it is either not independent of the source (e.g. Labour Party related) or not significant coverage of the individual. (Note AfDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Heald and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley (3rd nomination): similar articles created by the same editor.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the subject is notable. Not whether the article is notable. I've added some more material which is independent.Rathfelder (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you for developing the article; I'm afraid it still doesn't look notable to me. I don't understand what you mean by, "The question is whether the subject is notable. Not whether the article is notable." Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles under WP:NPOL just for being candidates (nor do city councillors qualify for articles under NPOL just for being city councillors.) If you cannot adequately source that he was already sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article before becoming a parliamentary candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. It is potentially possible for a city councillor in a city the size of Leeds to qualify for an article — he's not entitled to an automatic keep on that basis, but could still be considered sufficiently notable if you wrote a really substantial article about his work as a city councillor and power-sourced it over the WP:GNG hump. But that's not what's been done here — as written, this is barely more than a campaign brochure, and Wikipedia's inclusion rules for politicians (and our content rules governing even the politicians who do qualify for coverage on here) are specifically designed around the principle of weeding out campaign brochures. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local politician with local news refs. Nothing doing here. Szzuk (talk) 19:09, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a local councillor and candidate. The individual points in what amounts to a CV are not in themselves sufficient for biographical notability, nor is the local media coverage; fails WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTEBLP for non-election coverage, fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for the 2015 election. Just not enough significant coverage in indep. RS. --Bejnar (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a candidate is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Christian

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

No evidence supporting that this WP:BLP establishes notability as an artist. 1292simon (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 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!*} 02:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy having just a single source is not an automatic death-sentence for an article, but in this case I have not yet found a single independent reliable source on Anthony Christian. (The cited source is the webpage of the artist.) I examined all 171 hits on GoogleScholar, and none were about this chap. In GoogleBooks I found several mentions of the portrait painter Anthony Christian-Howard (both with and without the hyphen), but no mentions of this Anthony Christian. Having one-man shows at galleries, such as the Hazlitt, is indicative of someone who is either notable or likely to become notable, but the problem here is that much of the newspaper (and magazine if any) coverage is likely to be before electronic preservation of those sources. Nonetheless, I would (in fact did) expect to find something in reliable electronic sources, but I did not. Citations to paper only reliable sources is perfectly okay. I would urge the author to request and accept WP:Userfication, pending time spent in musty old libraries reviewing newspaper archives to recover the citations that would prove substantial coverage of his child prodigy status and coverage in the arts section of his one-man shows. Some magazine coverage in reliable sources would be nice too. The National Gallery has a press clippings file on him #NG24/1957/15. Some artists keep folios of their past news press, so checking with the artist or his gallery might be useful. I would also seriously consider rewriting the chronology in prose paragraphs with appropriate in-line citation. P.S. There is a press photo of him on sale at eBay and Diomedia, here and here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 26 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 12:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in fact double delete with cheese -blatant self-promotional artist-spam by non-notable local painter (and wife). no sources except artist's own website and the so-called ICHOR gallery --which is also run by the artist. note the website's copyright notice on the bottom of the pages: "Copyright of Anthony Christian and Marian "Fanny" Christian. All Rights Reserved" see archive snapshot here. the article is AUTObiographical BLP. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:17, 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. In contrast to many other aspects of the Star Wars Universum, these lists lack even the slightest indication of out-of-universe notability. If somebody wants to copy this to Wookieepedia, I'll be happy to email them the contents. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars planets (A–B)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars planets (A–B)

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

Unsourced and completely fictious and overly long article written from an in-universe perspective. None of these locations have any real notability as all the notable planets are already listed at List of Star Wars planets. Nathan121212 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating

Keep. Don't see any problem with this list, which is part of a series. Much of it is sourced, contrary to the nom's claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional Keep~~ there are about ten such articles detailing the planets by letter (A–B, C–D, E–G, H–J, K–L, M–N, O–Q, R–S, T–V, W–Z). Without commenting on the merits of having all ten of these articles, if this process is to take place they should all be nominated en mass, not just the one of them. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick:

Done nominated others. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of notability for these individual fictional planets. Most of the entries are sourced solely (if at all) by the books in which they appear. It is doubtful that there would be much in the way of secondary sourcing available for many of them. Planets that do have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources should be included in the main list of planets, or have their own article as required. Further to all of this much of the article is written "in universe", and while correctable, I don't see the point given the lack of secondary sourcing. There are alternative outlets for such extensive lists of planets, which I am sure already exist. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This means that topics about fictional elements (in this case, planets) should be covered in secondary sources. The Star Wars novels and the non-independent guides cannot be considered secondary sources for listing the planets. This A-B subset (and the other subsets) is just indiscriminately listing every planet that appears in the fictional universe. I support List of Star Wars planets, limited to the ones that have been critiqued in secondary sources (most likely the ones in the films). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of a secondary source covering planets seen in Star Wars. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that WP:INDISCRIMINATE points to WP:WAF, which says, "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." This is not being done here; it is just in-universe content without any independent commentary on it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this nomination is for all ten of the planets lists. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:BUNDLE so the other lists can be included appropriately. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: I have listed them here. Can you please assist me with adding the template to the other articles as I am currently editing via mobile. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have added the template to the other list articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination claimed that the A-B page was unsourced when it actually had 27 references. See WP:SK: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Andrew (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of these references are secondary sources, which are needed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (see my comment above). One cannot put together primary and non-independent sources to claim that an article about a fictional element is notable. Notability depends on secondary sources. Please note that List of Star Wars planets links to Wookieepedia, where in-universe content (which is what we have here in contravention of WP:WAF) is best housed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: I meant the article had too few reliable sources. Most of these articles are sourced to fiction books and first party sources. I said unsourced in error. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Four secondary sources (i.e., published independently by a third party) for a list of this type is GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the secondary sources are sources of information for only a few planets. They are not notable enough to stand alone if we were to remove all the info sourced form unreliable sources. Nathan121212 (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VMS Mosaic: These are not secondary sources independent from the franchise. The book The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons is published by LucasBooks. Also, WP:GAMEGUIDE says to "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right", and this applies to planets. Basically, game guides could supplement a passage about a notable planet, but they do not count as secondary sources toward establishing notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CSC #2 which explicitly allows this list given the above delete arguments that every list member "fails the notability criteria." This list goes very far beyond being only game related, so WP:GAMEGUIDE is not at all applicable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline also states, "However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Here we have hundreds of entries of indiscriminate planets, so list of Star Wars planets can focus on those actually mentioned in independent sources, like the National Geographic one I linked above. In-universe content should not be outweighing independent commentary; WP:WAF#Real-world perspective says, "Real-world perspective is not an optional quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." That perspective needs to have more than just in-universe content. That is what Wookieepedia is suitable for. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could be included in the main list article to basically tell readers that Wookieepedia goes into detail about planets. An external link would be available, and readers can become accustomed to Wookieepedia as a source for in-universe content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles date back to an earlier period in Wikipedia's history, when we had very loose inclusion criteria. Back then, it was still widely accepted that Wikipedia was the "sum of all human knowledge", including intrawiki fan sites for major franchises. Although interesting to fans, it is far too indiscriminate for Wikipedia, and it belongs on Wikia, which welcomes in-universe writing and non-independent sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think WP:OBTOP, WP:OBSCURE and WP:BELONG have some applicability here. Yes, there is a lot of in-universe, but there is also a good bit of out of universe material. Unfortunately, most of the editors who would have improved the article(s) to meet current guidelines have long since been all but forcibly driven away from editing Wikipedia. We need many more editors; not the current death spiral. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OBSCURE is an essay that, in terms of in-universe content, does not correspond with Wikipedia's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The policy states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This indicates the need for emphasis on secondary sources providing independent commentary on the subject matter. There is no abundance of "out-of-universe material" that is not simply identifying the primary sources in which a fictional planet appears. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:27, 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!*} 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot - All this crap belongs on some "fan site" like Wikia. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest articulating your argument further, otherwise it falls in the WP:BELONG category. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~I couldn't care less,~~ Some things just belong elsewhere and imho this is one of them, ~~If my argument falls in the "Belong" category then I'm absolutely chuffed!....~~ –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per not violating policy being sourcable and meeting WP:SALAT. With respects Davey2010, while certainly information in Wikipedia could be included outside these pages, "crap" is not an argument against a list article here. I find mass nominations to be unhelpful, specially when all nominated are then judged by addressable weakness in on or two. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independent sourcing here that vouches for the vast majority of the content, which is simply descriptions of the planets from primary sources. WP:SALAT says, "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." The primary-source content far outweighs any secondary-source content that may be available (and would be focused on the so-called "major" planets). Per WP:CSC #3, "If a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This is why I advocate keeping list of Star Wars planets (not up for AfD here); it is definitely worth identifying those that have been covered in secondary sources (typically the film ones) and referencing both primary and secondary sources for each planet in their own section. Unfortunately, most of the planets across all these subset articles do not have any secondary sourcing and thus go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE's definition of how fiction is treated in an encyclopedic manner (along with WP:WAF, which gets more specific, as I explained above). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding mass nominations. While sometimes (usually) unhelpful, in this case it is the only way a nomination would make sense. It would not make sense to delete (or nominate for deletion) planets A-B, but keep (or not nominate) the remainder. Why would A-B be any less noteworthy than C-D, or any other for that matter? It certainly doesn't make sense to have the same discussion across ten different AfD pages. A series of lists organized in this manner only makes sense if it is all or nothing, which is the way a deletion discussion on the matter should be conducted. I do however agree with your assessment that general "this is crap" and "I don't like it" style arguments are not helpful, and are contrary to what we would expect in an AfD discussion. As Erik says (and I did above), the planets with significant, third party sources, should either have their own articles (as does Alderaan for example), or are covered in List of Star Wars planets. It should be noted that many of the planets that do have articles are poorly sourced and generally written in-universe as well (which of course is grounds for improvement, not deletion). I personally don't see the need to document every minute detail of the expanded Star Wars universe. If the only sourcing available is the books in which they appear, the General Notability Guidelines agree with me. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True kelapstick, I find WP:DONTLIKEIT arguments to be decidedly unhelpful. My issue with this mass nomination is that it requires that the several hundred grouped topics be searched, and the several hundred included refs be checked. This would almost call for 4 or 5 mandatory relistings to allow that quantity of work to be done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. There aren't enough reliable sources to make viable articles about these fictional planets and worlds. We end up having an indiscriminate collection here, unable to tell notable planets from planets which were mentioned once in some obscure pulp-fiction book which supports the fictional universe. The in-universe content would be fine if it were supported by out-of-universe references (academic study or critical analysis, for example) but that just doesn't happen. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wish to delete all because of issues with some of the listed planets? Why not simply propose someone go through the 300+ planets listed and delete those unsourced? Would you also wish deletion of the blue-linked planets on the lists because they are also in-universe? As they are all fictional elements, why not simply merge and redirect them all to the Star wars article.... the one place where these fictional elements might merit any mention. Or we could just as simply nominate every article even remotely related to Star Wars, as every part of the series is fiction or based on fiction, which raises the question "just what part of Star Wars is not WP:INUNIVERSE so as to meet WP:Real world?" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I picked one of these articles at random (List of Star Wars planets (O–Q)) and I tried to see what would happen if I deleted everything without a citation or where the citation is only to primary material (e.g., a planet is mentioned in a novel and the novel is cited as the source). Not a single entry remained. Planets with sufficient out--of-universe references can have their own articles: I don't feel lists of this nature work on Wikipedia -- they are better served by a Star Wars wiki. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I went through List of Star Wars planets (M–N) next. I've deleted 80% of the article for having no reliable, secondary sources. What's left is left almost entirely because of citations to Daniel Wallace and Scott Kolins' "The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons (Star Wars)" (1996). I don't know whether that constitutes a reliable, secondary source. If it is, it is still only a single source and if what's left in the article is just a regurgitation of that one source, then that's not appropriate. So I still say delete them all. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And then I tried List of Star Wars planets (W–Z): nothing there is a reliable, secondary source. I've deleted all but the first entry. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I could see an argument for cutting down the lists and merging them into a single list (rather than having the numerous lists there currently are), but not for cutting all this material entirely. A list does not have to prove individual notability for each item in the list so long as the main subject itself is notable. kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not warrant this extensive in-universe content. See my comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've been going through these articles today to try and improve them, should they be kept. Once you've hacked away all the obviously unsourced and un-secondary-sourced material, there's not much less. The remainder would certainly fit onto a single list. If we start hacking away anything that doesn't have independent secondary sourcing, I don't know that there will be anything left. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore all recently deleted list items per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You already said to "Keep" above (and as seen here), and your arguments were refuted. Please redact this repeat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @VMS Mosaic: - I've struck your comment since Erik's correct - You can't vote twice. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I looked back and thought I had only made a previous comment. I completely forgot my first !vote two weeks ago. I would gladly have redacted it, but too late now. BTW, I do not concede that any argument has refuted anything I said. I simply have no interested in arguing endlessly. I believe what I said and said what I meant. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries we all mistakes - I've done it plenty of times :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that WP:CSC #2 has been stated as a keep reason (regardless of who believes they have refuted it), I think it is improper to remove any items from any of the lists based on notability until this AfD has been closed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been working on these articles while the AfD is going on and have deleted numerous list items. I have not done this on the basis of notability: rather, I have deleted material that is not supported by secondary, reliable sources. I have done this under WP:V. I quote: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I hope that explains my approach and is satisfactory to other editors. My aim is to (a) improve articles as per basic Wikipedia policy; and (b) see what is left having done that in order to inform this AfD discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PSTS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, a primary source is perfectly acceptable as the only source for actual "facts" such as planet x is found on page y of book z about universe w. Given that, every single planet listed has a primary source; some actually cited while many others need the citation added. That is all that is needed to meet WP:V. Notability for each planet is not required per WP:CSC #2; notability only applies to the list itself. Either the policy and the explaining essay mean what they say or they need to be rewritten. I believe they mean what they say. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then, VMS Mosaic. I have been over-zealous with some edits. Some of the material I deleted had no citations: I take it we are agreed that that can be deleted under WP:V. Some had primary sources. Feel free to revert my edits wholesale, or go through and just return those with primary sources. If I have time, I will do some more work on the articles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not abundant secondary sourcing about planets in the Star Wars fictional universe to warrant splitting a Wikipedia list article into subsets. Content from primary sources should not outweigh content from secondary sources, so a single list can be appropriate. Nobody here has argued against list of Star Wars planets; they have argued against the high level of detail from primary sources in the light of nearly no detail from secondary sources. Bondegezou's removal of this level of detail is appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was with removing entire entries. If an entry exists within the SW universe, then it by definition has at least one primary source available. Yes, the cites and/or citation needed tags need to be added. Yes, some excessive detail, in particular any analysis or detail not supported by primary (or secondary) sources, can be removed. I have no issue with combining into fewer articles as long as WP:TOOLONG doesn't come into play. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:22, 3 October 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one has offerred any explanation of why we need two competing lists. The implication is that list of Star Wars planets represents the planets that are actually notable and this longer list is the "deep fandom" stuff. There is no ban on the use of primary sources! To be useful, a list needs to be of reasonable length, which this ten-part monstrosity is not. Wookiepedia collects the Star Wars trivia. Claimsworth (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above- Moudul hasan (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Contrary to Schmidt's assertion above, it fails WP:SALAT because it epitomises What Wikipedia is not. Some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. A list like this one needs to explain why it contributes to the state of human knowledge. Additionally, per nom. there is grossly inadequate citation to reliable secondary sources for individual entries and their content (or even reliable sources); and per editor Claimsworth, the list of Star Wars planets covers the notable ground. --Bejnar (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- Excessively lengthy, in-universe fancruft sourced only to the works of fiction themselves (and poorly, at that). We've already got a list of star wars planets, and there is no need for a second ten-volume repetition. Reyk _YO! 01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Justified by it being about a major work of fiction. Separate articles about each of them is what would be excessive. But a mere list is nnot undue coverage, or inappropiate. This is talking about a fictional universe, so sources from the fiction are sufficient. Asking ofr deletion oin the ground of it being "fictious" is a limitation of the role of WP, which talks about notable fiction in the same fdetail as other notable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Star Wars" is a major work of fiction, but most of these entries are from spin-off novels or levels in video games, which I don't feel can be called major works of fiction. Bondegezou (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That, and the requirement for reliable independent sources does not disappear just because the article is about a work of fiction. Reyk _YO! 11:54, 13 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 Userfy as per request. Bluerasberry, feel free to ping me for a U1 deletion if the requested sources to not show up in due time. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CenterWatch

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

Ken Getz at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Getz is the founder of this organization. Neither he nor this organization seem to meet notability criteria with identified sources. I talked with him and he told me he would provide sources but has not followed through. Could I have this userfied to user:bluerasberry/CenterWatch until the article has better backing? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as suggested. Currently does not qualify for an article, but maybe Bluerasberry can improve it and bring it back. --MelanieN (talk) 08:23, 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!*} 02:47, 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:02, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K Rajagopal

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

PROD contested without any explanation. The subject is a minor politician and fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 14:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I know the exact reason for deletion?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.157.125 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In direct words, K Rajagopal is not important/famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per WP:INDAFD K Rajagopal maybe notable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be careful in filtering out the citations. This K Rajagopal is alive and politician. The searh result you linked, shows many people with same name. For ex. the very 2nd citation is about some other guy who is now dead. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 22:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per coverage in major media, such as http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/rajagopal-elected-again/article1180682.ece , http://mathrubhuminews.in/ee/ReadMore/6825/paranari-remark-has-not-affected-kollam-k.rajagopal/E, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/k-rajagopal-cpim-kollam-secretary/article1180542.ece , http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/article327520.ece , http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/CPM-CPI-panel-meetings-for-LS-polls-from-today/articleshow/31389770.cms , http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/news/kerala/pinarayi-faction-grabs-kollam-in-neck-and-neck-race-118671.html etc --Soman (talk) 21:02, 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!*} 02:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Every news article I have seen on the subject has only a trivial mention of the subject, as in "This guy won an election. These other things also happened in the election." --Richard Yin (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:V and WP:N, the subject seems to be notable in few sources which have conflict and confusion b/t the politician and actor. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IF you feel to delete this article, go ahead. No issues. The person is a politician in state leval and in service for more than 40 years. All reference given are related to him only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshrl (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont blank or remove the deletion tag as you did with your recent edits [[74]] until the issue has been discussed. Thanks. Physicsmathftw (talk) 08:06, 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. → Call me Hahc21 17:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of governors-general of King George V

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

Other monarchs do not have similar pages and it's questionable how useful such a page would be. XinaNicole (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fits nowhere. Name of article is incorrect. Content is unfortunate. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have listed this AfD as it was never transcluded, and the heading was not added. Should be fine now, and run for seven days from today. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These offices have all their own articles/lists, like Governor-General of the Union of South Africa. It's not a good idea to separate some and then join with others in a random manner which has nothing to do with the encyclopedic subject. Kraxler (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 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!*} 02:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. A list in theory might be created with such information, but this is a complete mess. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 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.

<!Relisted-->

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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breathless Beauty, Broken Beauty

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

Non notable artwork. Prod declined. It is on temporary exhibition for one art festival. WP:BEFORE finds several passing mentions in the context of the festival. No sources dedicated to the work. no critical analysis. no mention of influence on other artists or works (not surprising since its brand new)

Article contains 3 links to WP:PRIMARY affiliated sources. No

Suggest redirection to London Design Festival where it could merit a brief mention.

Prod decline claims notability due to claimed unique features of the work. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: As a "film" this lacks coverage to meet WP:NF, yes... but as a unique work of art that is being displayed in galleries we have other considerations, yes? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt long time no see, I believe we have not interacted since Rome, Sweet Rome. There are many unique pieces of art that are displayed in galleries and museums. Very few (percentage wise) are notable. This one is only exhibited temporarily to boot. It has won no awards, received no commentary or critique. or any other trappings of notability. The artist was certainly selected to create the work by the museum for the exhibition, but that would be true of whatever bit of art she happened to create. The one she actually did create has not been noticed by anyone subsequently. using WP:ARTIST as a proxy, its possible that it could satisfy 4.b but its borderline, and it certainly fails 1-3 and 4a,c, and d. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... to be fair, I've been a part of several and installation pieces are not the same as permanent; they usually travel and are seen at only one location at a time. This brand new article may simply fall under a version of TOO SOON. It's public appearance is recent and it may capture the attention of reliable sources. If so, we can consider undeletion or recreation. Does its author or an article contributor wish it userfied? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am certainly not arguing that this work can never become notable, just that it isn't now. (Although I think its more appropriate to treat it as a work of art than a film, even though film is involved.) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Pat O'Neill's The Decay of Fiction, Michael Haussman's A Study in Gravity and Yoshua Okón's Salò Island are similar... art statements displayed in a film format. Some of the artists and works have articles. Others, not yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:42, 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!*} 02:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~non~~ barely sourced artist spam. a temporary installation at a museum by a non-notable artist is hardly worthy of the encyclopedia.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - This article details an important technical 'world's first' being the first example of a 12K Video Sculpture anywhere in the world - something which is technically complex to achieve and even more so to do with artistic integrity. As such it has rightly earned a place in the history books, which ought to be sufficient justification for a few K of space on a Wikipedia server. The world is waking up to 4K video, and 8K has been recently demonstrated. 12K systems are already in development by major technology manufacturers, and will become more and more important over the coming years. Acknowledging and learning about early examples of this technology cover an *essential* part of information technology history, irrespective of the artist's individual merit. Indeed unprecedented artistic endeavours like this often become signposts for both art and technology followers. As a unique physical experience which cannot be reproduced 'online' - this work must be experienced to be appreciated. Arguably, anyone who has not witnessed this artwork *in person* may not be qualified to judge its merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.233.250 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what "history books" would those be exactly, artist-IP? and the trivial technical "first" is not much of a claim to fame. i don't think the "first" art video in 8mm film, 16mm film, VHS tape, MP4 video, MOV video, (etc etc etc) or any other format has its own encyclopedia article. if there exists an article about this 12k video format, then there could be included there a line or two: "the first (sic SOURCES?) art video in 12k video format was Breathless Beauty, Broken Beauty by artist/filmmaker Vanessa Jane Hall" --and even that is a stretch. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The art doesn't use the non-existent 12k video format. It is 3 4k displays put together. Otherwise known as a Video wall, a technique that has been out for decades. And Video sculpture has been a thing since the 50s (and note the actual pioneers in that field of art do not have articles dedicated to their pieces) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 8 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 17:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaal Zulfiqar

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted at AfD in 2011 and reposted within a couple of months, but too long ago to qualify for CSD G4. Lack of reliable sources and in any event, he appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Safiel (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actor has worked in several films and television shows. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 11:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a big fan base, and is prominent in commercials, so meets a couple of the WP:NACTOR. There are also some newspaper entries on him, of which I have added one, so GNG can apply too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As added and cited a reliable sources by Graeme Bartlett, subject establishes the notability.Justice007 (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the criteria needs to be on wiki so that it can be edited by other users.. ARK (talk) 18:18, 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 06:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

450cc motocross bike

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

This is someone's research into engine size changes in motorcycles, with links taking us to the manufacturers website. WP:NOT Gbawden (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- this would need a restart to correctly summarize the AMA Motocross 450 Class and 450 cc FIM MXGP. Agree that the citations given in the article are useless mfgr homepage links. — Brianhe (talk) 18:55, 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!*} 02:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 450 appears to be a magic number in Motocross racing. This is not arbitrary research. ~KvnG 14:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to me to be a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Trotter

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

outsourced, lacking notability Owais khursheed (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is a memorial for a soldier despite what the title says. I'm deletion sorting this accordingly. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No idea what or where Camp Trotter is, as the article doesn't bother to say, but as the article is in reality only a WP:COATRACK memorial to a non-notable dead soldier, apparently by his father, this clearly fails notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry but the soldier and the camp are not notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Necrothesp Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Hood (pirate)

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

Totally unsourced, possibly apocryphical and apparently unsourceable biography of what is either a character made up by Horrible Histories, or a figure so insignificant nobody has ever seen fit to write about him. Zero Google hits on either web or book search (there are a few false-positives on "Basil Hood pirate" as Basil Hood worked with Gilbert and Sullivan, the creators of Pirates of Penzance; everything else seems to trace back to HH). The whole story (as given here for instance) reeks of bullshit (pun intended). The idea that it's impossible to transport cattle by ship is obvious nonsense, as is the idea that a military officer would release a violent criminal because he smelled bad. I don't see how this can ever be a viable article unless someone can dig up a reliable source, and I certainly can't find a single one. Mogism (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sources that would indicate notability, and it's not clear if this was a real person or just some type of urban legend/character. Schematica (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he is only known because of a comedy sketch ... And a pirate known for stealing cows? Postcard Cathy (talk)

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!*} 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avast, matey, and shiver me timbers! Thar be not enough reliable sources for this lubber's scribbles. Delete thee article, then shave the scurvy dog's belly with a rusty razor! - Location (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and WP:RS problems. Kierzek (talk) 11:22, 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 Merge to Football in Portugal. Randykitty (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Portugal by major honours won

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

Contested PROD. Still fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH JMHamo (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - firstly, who is defining what is a "major" honour? Which reliable sources are talking about the topic of 'football clubs in Portugal by major honours won'? I fear we have WP:SYNTH here. Giant Snowman 06:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you search in portuguese you'll get much more sources. For example this: "F.C. Porto e Benfica: confira o total de títulos". maisfutebol.iol.pt. maisfutebol.iol.pt. 2013-08-11. Retrieved 2014-09-15."FIFA confirma que FCPorto tem mais títulos que Benfica". dn.pt. Diário de Notícias. 2011-05-25. Retrieved 2014-09-15.Rpo.castro (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That citation pertains only to FC Porto and Benfica, what about the rest? We need extensive coverage to satisfy GNG. JMHamo (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with WP:OR implications of subjective term "major". If no reliable sources are discussing this for all teams then I am not sure the OR issues can be resolved.

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!*} 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs to be improved, not deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I don't care). I don't mind if this gets deleted, and it is probably best to be deleted, as this is yet another fan list that is quite likely not to be maintained in any consistent way (there are already enough half baked football related articles, I say...) BUT note that 1) lists of this kind are perfectly common in yearly sports magazines / reviews (i.e. it is fair to presume that sources exist and are not hard to find) 2) "major" will be surely settled by those sources - and eventually a little discussion to chose here and there. Anyway, 'major' is evident in most cases: competitions organized by the national football federation, which are in general quite easy to know which are (FIFA / UEFA / CAF / ... recognition) 3) There are several other similar articles, better take that in consideration, to avoid too much of different criteria - Nabla (talk) 20:18, 26 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's pretty short and, given the nature of Portuguese football with its big club dominance, it's not very likely to get much longer. Still, it is fairly valuable and relevant information that it seems a shame to remove altogether. On that basis would it not be better to merge it into the also fairly short Football in Portugal as a highly relevant section? Keresaspa (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: The proposal from Keresaspa, for me is the best way do solve the"problem". I think this information fits much better in Football in Portugal then along itself.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:18, 4 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 16:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne Charlie (play)

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

We cannot find any hard evidence that this play ever existed. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Refactor to represent the only successful play of this title, by Glyn Jones, which was first produced in 1984 and recently revived and videoed. That play is about the Leybourne/Vance rivalry, but it of course could not have inspired in any way the original screenplay of the 1944 film. The confusion of dates and storylines by the IP who created this article (the IP's only contribution to WP), was apparently either a mistake or deliberately misleading. Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 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!*} 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline WP:CSD#A1 as it lacks sufficient context to identify the subject. No prejudice against a new article about a verifiable play of that title, per Softlavender. Pburka (talk) 16:48, 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel “Ra” Brown

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

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but this subject doesn't appear to be remotely qualified for inclusion. Silverfish8088 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete Agree with nominator, unfortunately, since her song here is fairly decent. Don't see the sources needed to meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 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!*} 02:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sadly no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I gave at Talk:Raquel “Ra” Brown. The article itself essentially says that she's a local fixture, and I didn't find anything elsewhere that elevates her beyond that or that goes beyond the same sort of routine notices as the sources cited in the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 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. neither of the keeps provide evidence for meeting WP:CORP and this been relisted three times. Secret ^account 19:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picreel

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

No real indication why subject is important. Being mentioned as one of the innovative companies by seedcamp doesn't make subject to notable. Not even a single third party source that mentions company and makes it notable. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 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!*} 02:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are 3rd party refs that mention the company, but they are only incidental mentions of 1 sentence or less (entrepreneur.com and conversionxl.com). The other refs do not meet the standard of RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:21, 26 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, → Call me Hahc21 16:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is a result of seedcamp, that selects only 30 companies in a year. Did anyone really attempted hard to find third party references. The Company marginally passes notability with its mentions in reliable sources. Its will really be harsh to mark this page for deletion. My final decision will be keep.Ireneshih (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, digging hard into search engine, the company marginally passes notability. I am changing my vote to weak keep.Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources you found would you say demonstrate significant coverage of the software?Dialectric (talk) 11:19, 6 October 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 9 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 16:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Kiffe

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

Fails GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search on him and there is only 1 independent, feature story on him, which was from earlier this month. I want to point out in advance that I expect someone to say he passes WP:NSOCCER for "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" (he has appeared in 1 game, as of 9/22/14, in the USL Pro league). However, that mark of notability is a guideline and does not supercede GNG, which is the ultimate mark of notability. Nearly all of the gHits on Kiffe are social media-related, basic sports website rankings/playerfiles, WP:ROUTINE game coverage, and some aren't even independent sources (the UCSB school refs are for supporting purposes only, they cannot be used as primary sources). He may be notable next season, who knows, but right now, nope. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:11, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sorry, I'm an idiot, shouldn't edit first thing in the morning - yes, he meets WP:NFOOTBALL and is therefore notable. Needs improving to meet GNG, but that is not currently a reason to delete. Giant Snowman 20:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a reason to delete. He fails GNG, which is the ultimate threshold for notability, not a sports-specific guideline. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Modify AfD: I am wary that User:Jrcla2’s WP:BEFORE search did not reveal that Kiffe was inserted straight into the starting lineup after being signed at the end of the season and since his signing has played in 5 straight regular season matches plus Sacramento's first playoff match – not just the one as stated in the article. I am also wary that User:GiantSnowman is erroneously claiming a failed WP:NFOOTBALL, which is already clearly stated as passed in the original AfD nomination above that his response is in support of.

Additionally, I find it quite hypocritical that User:Jrcla2 seems to ignore WP:ATHLETE in this instance, however uses it as an argument in a separate article.

In any event, WP:GNG as always is the ultimate decider which Kiffe, in my opinion, seems to meet based on this and this and this and this and has various independent recognition of his play and talent.

However, if Kiffe is deemed non-notable by the masses, then I would modify current AfD to include collegiate soccer players who have relatively equivalent or lesser claims than Kiffe. A few soccer players who seem to be affected would include:

— GauchoDude (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response to all of the other names listed – those are case-by-case and have 0 bearing on this AfD. Per the sources listed, this is routine and about two players being selected in a draft, this is as routine as it gets, this is literally a list of many award winners (not an article about Kiffe), this falls under the same umbrella as the previous link which is a list of award winners and not about Kiffe, and this is a press release of award winners/not about Kiffe. The only sources that definitely counts is this, and the only other one that may pass is this. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe you have misinterpreted my comment above re: other players. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used incorrectly most often when trying to argue to keep or delete something. That's not the case here. I am pointing out that: 1. "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." and 2. "... these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.", both taken from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS itself. The players above are not in support of keeping or deleting the Kiffe article, but provided as comparison to previous widely accepted thresholds. GauchoDude (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has made four appearances in the USL Professional Division (a Fully Professional League) for Sacramento Republic FC which makes him pass WP:NFOOTBALL. James Kiffe is also notable per WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Evidence: a quick google news search. IJA (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is he fails WP:GNG, which supercedes any sub-specific guideline. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your point is already stated above. Additionally, you do not need to reply to multiple people with the same response. GauchoDude (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can state it to whomever I like, as many times as I like. Neither @IJA: nor @Rlendog: addressed my concern that I stated in the original nomination, which is why it was necessary to reiterate. Any closing admin on this AfD will see that their !votes didn't provide any substance to counter my nomination rationale. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:GNG is a subsection of WP:NOTABILITY, however we also have WP:NSPORT to specifically determine whether or not a Sports-player/ Athlete is notable. However because you're obsessed with WP:GNG, I'm going to say that James Kiffe is notable per WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Evidence: a quick google news search. You will also notice that his coverage in these news sites aren't "routine" as you had previously stated. IJA (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I must point out that in no way do the sports Notability guidelines supersede GNG. The SSGs are meant to help editors identify classes of articles that in all likelihood would meet GNG to avoid needless AfD discussions. For example, it is reasonable to assume that any English Premier League or Major League Baseball player will meet the minimum standard for GNG. But that doesn't mean the aren't exceptions - I have definitely seen articles deleted because they failed GNG but met the sport guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTBALL Rlendog (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is he fails WP:GNG, which supercedes any sub-specific guideline. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have specific guidelines for a reason. Because there is a consensus that subjects that meet these guidelines are almost always notable, even if sources to demonstrate GNG are not always readily available, and so editors don't have to waste time debating the issue every time. So unless you have a particular reason why this subject is somehow especially different from the rest, meeting the specific guideline is fine. Rlendog (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving. – Michael (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG and FOOTY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.153 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a lot of passion either way on this, but in have to say if WP:NFOOTBALL says that players who appear in one USL Pro game is notable, then that is an incredibly lax standard. It's a second/third tier league in a country that isn't that into soccer. I know because I live in a town with a franchise and they get less media coverage than the local single-A baseball team (let alone the D1 colleges within a 90 mile radius). How is footy so much less restrictive than other sport guidelines? What's next, all triple A baseball players and NBA D-Leaguers? Rikster2 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointless comment that's not relevant for this discussion. 204.115.110.20 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really since the whole AfD is based on an editor's opinion of a gap between WP:FOOTY and GNG. Completely on point to suggest that the SSG may not hit the mark of identifying players who in most cases will meet GNG. But your comment did do a nice job of illustrating what a pointless comment is, albeit not in the way you intended. Rikster2 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Football is a global game and is the most popular sport in clearly over 170 countries and receives more media coverage than any other sport or even all sports combined.It cannot compared even remotely be compared with Baseball ,American Football or even Basketball in a Global perspective through what you wrote may be true in an American perspective.it is most popular sport in countries from Germany No 1 to Nicaragua ranked 170 or Eritrea 204 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC) ,[reply]
      - Yes, football is a global game, but its popularity in every country is not the same. I would fully accept that a "fully professional" player appearing in at least one game in football-mad England, Spain, Italy, etc would meet GNG. However, in the US, third-division level players do not receive the level of press to satisfy GNG across the board. The standard applies a broad brush stroke that is not correct in all cases. News flash - basketball is also a global sport. But players in the top league in England don't enjoy the level of news coverage to be expected to satisfy GNG across the board, but in Italy or Spain you can bet the top division players do (and this context is what WP:NBASKETBALL tries to convey). Hence my point. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's a whole lot of voting going on here and not much countering to my AfD proposal. At least User:IJA acknowledged it and rebutted. I hope the closing admin considers this, regardless of what their ultimate decision is. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Citing a WP:NFOOTBALL, which is itself a guideline, is more than a vote. Just because you don't like the guideline doesn't make it otherwise. Rlendog (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - NFOOTY is a widely agreed upon consensus for notability. I would recommend you check the Deletion Archive for hundreds of examples of its application in similar circumstances. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on some of the sources put forth by GauchoDude, I think he is (barely) notable. However, all of you citing FOOTY as the reason need to re-read the preamble for WP:NSPORTS and the top of the list of professional leagues because both are clear that they do not in and of themselves constitute notability. The user who said that the criteria listed therein are meant to show those who are "more than likely" would meet GNG was correct, but I would again argue that USL Pro does not achieve that, whether or not it is "fully professional." Are we saying that ANYONE who has played even a game in that league is more than likely notable? Because I would challenge that based on being in a USL Pro market and seeing the actual level of coverage for this minor league. In my opinion, that shouldn't be in the guideline and takes away credibility from WP:NFOOTY. Rikster2 (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have absolutely no comprehension why User:Jrcla2 created this AFD. WP:NOTE clearly states that an article is meritable if it either meets WP:GNG or it meets a one of the subject-specific guidlines that are listed - one of which is WP:NSPORT. I believe everyone agrees that the article meets WP:NSPORT (specifically it meets WP:NFOOTY). How then, is there any basis for deletion? It's not even a borderline, played once for 5 minutes; he's a current player whose has had 4 recent starts [75]. Though even if he had 0 starts, how does he not meet WP:GNG with detailed newspaper articles all about him [76]? Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alice McCleary

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

NN businessperson, sufficiently NN we don't even know her date, year, or place of birth, e.g. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. the only article that links to her is Resources Industry Development Board. LibStar (talk) 02:32, 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!*} 02:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Fails BIO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we can't even verify basic information about this living person, as listed by nominator, we have no business trying to write a biography on them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:56, 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 Nina Stemme. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bengt Gomér

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

NN stagehand's bio sourced to his website. Worked with famous people in famous places do what??? If I took tickets at a Rolling Stone concert, do I get an article here, too. Worked with Jagger on tour. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A scenographer (stage designer) is a "stagehand" to about the same extent that Coco Chanel was a seamstress. --Hegvald (talk) 12:13, 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!*} 02:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability or the existence of better references. —Swpb^talk 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nina Stemme, to whom he is married [77]. There currently seems to be a fair amount of coverage in Swedish newspapers about his directing Turandot at Dalhalla next summer with Stemme in the title role, this, for instance - so there is some notability but, unless someone can find coverage, probably in Swedish newspapers, of his previous career, not enough for a standalone article. PWilkinson (talk) 13:52, 27 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 12:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per PWilkinson. It's likely to be possible to find enough material for a better article. For the time being, redirecting to his wife's article and including a brief sentence about him there seems like the best idea. --Hegvald (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Either Redirect or Delete. Wgolf (talk) 00:19, 8 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 16:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

34th Street Wall

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Google Books showed up nothing and although Google News had several hits, it is coverage in the local newspaper. Possibly worth a redirect/merge to Gainseville. Has been tagged for notability for over a year. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Tampa Bay Times and The Gainesville Sun articles already in the article are very good in-depth examples of coverage. Also the The Independent Florida Alligator and WCJB-TV give good coverage. [78][79] There is nothing in WP:GNG which stipulates the banning of articles that have "local" coverage or discounting such coverage. Gainesville isn't "local" to the Tampa Bay anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The wonderful photo is enough to warrant a page but there seems to be plenty of text coverage in books too. Andrew (talk) 18:15, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone and surprisingly Andrew - I never thought in my entire life I would say this but the images are enough to warrant an article.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:03, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Adamia

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator because he played in the Azerbaijan top division. Since that league is not confirmed as fully pro, playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of wikipedians proposing to delete articles that they personally consider they could do without. Your assertion is wrong. WP:GNG does not mention anything about fully professional leagues. Also, you must back up your belittling claims with reliable sources about the Azerbaijan league, when you claim that it is not worth any attention. Otherwise, I can reasonably assume that this deletion is made for some kind of personal reasons.--Bogu Slav 19:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boguslav - way to AGF. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG based on multiple appearances in notable stages of UEFA Intertoto Cup and the UEFA Europa League. IJA (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Intertoto Cup was little more than glorified qualifying rounds for the UEFA Cup/Europa League and playing in it at any stage does not confer notability. Though best I can tell he never played in this competition making this a moot point. Moreover, he never played in the group stage of the Europa League or Champions League, which are the only stages of European competition which do confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. Has not played in any non-qulifying rounds of European competition either, standard non-notable journeyman footballer. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide at least SOME proof that he has never played in a fully professional league. Otherwise, these discussions are purely your opinion. Give a credible source saying that the Azerbaijan league is not professional.--Bogu Slav 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As sensible as that is, it doesn't unfortunately work that way. This could simply be resolved if User:Boguslavmandzyuk were to simply provide a reference that the league is fully professional. Surely the local media must discuss things like that from time-to-time. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 28 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!*} 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because none of the deletionists has given any reliable sources for their reasons to delete. --Bogu Slav 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete here is the absence of reliable sources. Joe Decker sums the situation up nicely in his closing remarks in an AfD concerning another Azeri footballer:

In this instance, NFOOTY gives a plainly ambiguous result. Having looked to the April discussion at WT:NFOOTY, I find that while there was a consensus to remove the [Azerbaijan Premier] League from the [List of fully professional leagues], I do not see that there is a consensus about whether the league is or isn't fully-professional, it is instead simply so far unverified either way. We don't know...In addition, SNGs in general and NFOOTY in particular is usually, as a matter of textual interpretation, treated as putting the burden of proof on those wishing to show notability via the criteria, which further reduced the weight of keep arguments based on NFOOTY.

Simply put it is the absence of reliable sources concerning the professional standing of the Azerbaijan Premier League that means the article fails WP:NFOOTY and the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources that means the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG the player was the top scorer in the Azerbaijan Premier League in 2010-2011 season and top scorer in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup in 2005 an annual regional football tournament, recognized by FIFA and was part of the winning team in 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Bogslav pointed out in their first comment, WP:GNG doesn't mention anything about particular footballing accomplishments. They are only relevant to general notability if they have generated significant coverage, which does not appear to be the case here. The sources listed in the article are routine sports journalism that one would expect to find even for footballers well below the threshold of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With 7 Champions League appearances and 22 Europa League appearances over the last decade, and being the top goalscorer in the top league in a country where football is the top sport, it's inconceivable that if one had access to local press, that there wouldn't be abundant evidence to meet WP:GNG. To suggest deletion of this article is an extreme example of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 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) 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of dvd ripper for mac

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

WP is WP:NOT a shopping guide, a product brief, nor a critique of software site. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article is full of original research and its topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 02:57, 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!*} 02:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- comparison articles/tables can be useful when the compared items are notable/have their own wp articles. This is not the case here. Essentially unreferenced OR/Synth comparison of non-notable software, that is itself non-notable.Dialectric (talk) 13:49, 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuusoo

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

NN website, some claims of involvement with varuous things but not any substantial or notable involvement with anything substantive or notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 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!*} 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that Lego Cuusoo was such a big deal I would have thought this a solid basis for an article, though obviously it will require more references to establish notability. Artw (talk) 05:17, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Stackhouse

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a person notable only as a local radio personality in a single media market. This is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia, needless to say — a broadcaster with anything short of a national platform has to be sourced well enough to get over WP:GNG, which this isn't. It's also a likely WP:COI, as the original creator was User:Gary550 — which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, I know, but does confirm that the intent here was likely advertorial rather than encyclopedic. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. We should be careful about assuming WP:COI but I think this is promotional in nature and can be speedily deleted per WP:G11. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:15, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ELVA - (mobile platform)

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

NN. Name dropping, but alas, working with some famous group doesn't make you notable. No other indicators that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 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!*} 01:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Swpb^talk 22:52, 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 redirect to Timothy Hwang . j⚛e decker ^talk 16:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FiscalNote

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

NN software company. It claims some notable users, a notable investor, but notability isn't inherited from those. No showing that this company is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 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!*} 01:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's argument. —Swpb^talk 22:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Timothy Hwang for now. I think this has the potential to become notable, although it barely breaches GNG at the moment. Perhaps later it can be expanded once it receives more coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:09, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic Revolution Records

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

No coverage in secondary sources; promotional. Blackguard 22:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an individual, who is directly interested in Progressive Rock community worldwide, I have been monitoring the discussion regarding Melodic Revolution Records page. I have added a several relevant sources into the article as required, according to this discussion. Will take care of doing more once I find a little more free time. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:883:C600:D95:5C27:F41B:6A1 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:1811:883:C600:D95:5C27:F41B:6A1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [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!*} 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about it: Talk: Melodic_Revolution_Records. Please read all the comments. There are several artists who have their own Wikipedia page linked to Melodic Revolution Records wikipedia page. And more will come ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisgeorges (talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I have added a various links to the secondary sources regarding both the label itself and its activities and references to the artists it is working with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:883:C600:AC81:15A9:D9D2:1A7 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:1811:883:C600:AC81:15A9:D9D2:1A7 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For all the reasons stated above.

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 00:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Progressive Party presidential tickets

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, there were 3 parties named the Progressive Party in the United States (see Progressive Party (United States, 1912), Progressive Party (United States, 1924), and Progressive Party (United States, 1948), this article synthesizes the three trying to show some continuity among these parties and their electoral performances. Not encyclopedic as all these elections are covered in sourced detail in already created articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; these were three separate parties despite the shared name. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, The 1912 and 1924 parties weren't entirely separate, as the the reminents of the former were still there and were a major part of the latter. As to 1948, the California and Wisconsin parties, which were part of the 1924 campaign were parts of that campaign as well, so there was SOME continuity. Of the races it ran in three of the five got over a million votes and it was the most successful third party in history. Not only that, it elected members of congress throughout most of the first half of the 20th centuryEricl (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the 1912 and 1924 movements were completely separate. See TR's view of the Socialist Party and note the fact that the Socialist Party was one of the main driving factors behind the 1924 LaFollette campaign (they didn't run a candidate that year but instead threw full organizational and financial support to his campaign, the final chapter of the Conference for Progressive Political Action episode.) The only overlap would have been a few aging Bull moosers who might have voted for the third party as individuals. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 October 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!*} 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Far from being unnecessary reiteration, this is a useful historical tool — a well-researched and detailed list which depicts, at a glance, all of the pertinent details regarding the three respective American presidential runs, while also providing instant comparison between the candidates from the three same-named parties and the instant-overview specifics for each of the elections. Such comparative details are not readily available from each of the individual articles on the three elections and, without this entry, would require moving back-and-forth between the articles and taking notes. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This is a historical thing that should be kept on here for sure. Wgolf (talk) 23:07, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has historical use. as long as the different progressive parties (small p not big P) are clearly shown, it seems okay to intermingle candidates from the various progressive parties. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you or anyone else !voting keep show reliable sources that "intermingle" the candidates in this way? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@postdlf - It doesn't really matter if no other source has combined these campaigns in a single list in this way, so long as no novel claim is being made. If the article intimated that this was all one political movement, with some sort of ideological or organizational continuity, that would be a novel historical argument and thus prohibited "Original Research." This is just a unique mashup of indisputable historical facts, making no claims other than being a LIST of PROGRESSIVE PARTY PRESIDENTIAL TICKETS. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous arguments in support of the article, particularly those of Roman Spinner. Article is well-resarched, verifiable and has historical value.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This keeps getting said, yet no one has shown this in this discussion; there are no references in this list to establish that there is a continuity between these organizations; and it's telling that Progressive Party (United States) is merely a redirect to the disambiguation page section Progressive Party#United States. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is three distinct political movements: TR's trustbuster Republicans (center-right ideologically), Robert LaFollette's more or less independent run for Presidency (there was no real party behind it, it was essentially a ballot name, backed by the trade unions and the Socialist Party; center-left ideologically); and the anti-Cold War liberal Democratic organization associated with former Sec. of Agriculture Henry Wallace and backed by the Communist Party (center-left ideologically). The fact that this is an unabashed LIST of these otherwise pretty much unrelated things using the same name makes it okay, in my view. I don't see this as a fork either. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Combining them in a list like this implies a continuity that isn't there, and the list would require some pretty heavy disclaimers to resist that tendency, more effort than whatever this is worth (which isn't anything that I can see). If you acknowledge that they merely shared names, it's like you're endorsing a "list of people from any place named Peoria". postdlf (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be hard to write a heavy disclaimer. In fact there needs to be a heavy disclaimer. This, of course, is a simple editing matter, not really an aspect of a notability challenge. Carrite (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is actually greatly similar to a page I launched, List of Canadian socialist parties (limited to the very early years so far) ... Those organizations are apples and oranges and pears to some extent, although with greater continuity than the three "Progressive Party" organizations here. Still, not to use an OTHERSTUFF argument, such pages of unlike things are more or less a device to help a newcomer decode one organization from another — a disambiguation page on steroids, if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@postdlf - I have rewritten the lead and added short historical blurbs for each of the organizations. Hopefully this satisfies your objection. Carrite (talk) 14:46, 8 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 16:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Rural Radio Association

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

No indication that this organization is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 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!*} 00:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a media entity of statewide significance in Nebraska, and the founder's death in 2004 was covered in news obits around the country. Examples of coverage: [80] [81] [82] [83] Could consider possible merger with KRVN (AM), the flagship station, but this network seems to be real enough and long-lived enough that I'd lean toward keeping this article separate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nata con Fresas (song)

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

Utterly non-notable song, with no references. —Swpb^talk 23:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Looking on Google I cannot find any reliable sources. I have been removing lyrics as there is likely an infringement if they are here.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 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!*} 00:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:46, 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 keep--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Google Doodles (1998–2009)

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

WP:LISTCRUFT of Google logo#Google Doodles that have appeared on the site between 1998 and 2009. While the official Google logo meets WP:N, individual daily iterations that follow pop culture, political or social trends do not meet WP:N. Any individual doodles of significance are mentioned in the Google Doodles section of the Google logo article. The article does include references for some of the doodles, the bulk of content is unsourced, especially those beyond 2001. AldezD (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEBCRIT states "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Although some of the Doodles listed in List of Google Doodles (1998–2009) in are referenced, the List of Google Doodles (1998–2009)#References listed are largely verification of the Doodle that appeared on a specific day; these references are not WP:SIGCOV of each individual Doodle.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles feature the same issues listed above:

AldezD (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this has been the source of a multitude of discussion in numerous secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. Often Google doodles have wide coverage in news sources all over the world (depending where they are shown), and in fact almost every single time there is a Doodle, one or more news outlets will post some sort of story on it. Maybe more sources need to be added to these articles, but I think the lists should all stay. Crumpled Fire (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Cirt. One user's "cruft" is another user's notable cultural material. Google Doodles are the subject of consistent attention. (My GNews search a few seconds ago for "Google doodle" yielded 10,800 hits.) A few random selections, found very quickly, of articles discussing the Google Doodle conceptually, as a marketing tool: [84] [85] [86] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already given. --Allexkoch (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for same reason. No question that these are the subject of massive public attention and interest, and often significant works of art in their own right. Blythwood (talk) 12:11, 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.

[1] ttp://www.gencon.com/press/2014recordattendance

[2] ttp://www.gencon.com/experience/etspotlight#Marooned

[3] ttp://indienation.fm/an-interview-with-marooned/

[4] thelouisianapurchase.net

[cnned-5] CNN Editor (Feb 26, 2014). "Editor's note to "Spying on Muslims is legal?"". CNN. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[“bbcoutlook"-6] Ash, Lucy (August 21, 2012). "Interview on the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting". Outlook BBC World Service.

[“hpl”-7] Takruri, Dena (August 5, 2013). "Hatred In America One Year After Sikh Shooting". HuffPost Live.

[“aj”-8] "#NotYourTerrorist tackles anti-Muslim prejudice". Al Jazeera. March 27, 2014.

[“wire”-9] Randall, Eric (August 9, 2012). "Five Best Thursday Columns". The Wire.

[“newsier”-10] Johnson, John (August 9, 2012). "How to Fight Bigotry? Take Lesson From Sikhs". Newser.

[ia-11] Haniffa, Aziz (August 17, 2012). "Profiling and monitoring of violence against Sikhs have to be treated separately". India Abroad.

[td-12] Faruqi, Saadia (March 4, 2014). "Why Everyone Should Care about NYPD's Surveillance of Muslims". ‘’Tikkun Daily’’.

[dig-13] Kelly, Alexander (August 31, 2014). "Inappropriate Government Watchlisting Threatens Innocent Lives". Truthdig. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[kos-14] Watson, Liz (November 26, 2012). "Worse Treatment for Pregnant Workers: It's Ironic, Don't You Think?". ‘’Daily Kos’’.

[agenda-15] "9/11 and the Neo-Conservative Agenda". ‘’TeleSUR’’. September 10, 2014.

[“rcp1”-16] "RealClearPolicy Morning Edition". ‘’RealClearPolicy’’ (the sister site to RealClearPolitics). November 26, 2012.

[“rcp2”-17] "RealClearPolicy Morning Edition". ‘’RealClearPolicy’’ (the sister site to RealClearPolitics). December 24, 2013.

[womenfam-18] "Pregnant Women Need More Protection in the Workplace, Opinion Piece Says". National Partnership for Women & Families. November 27, 2012.

[nccrc-19] "IMMIGRATION GENERAL - MEDIA". National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel.

[gid1-20] "Links to Gideon Anniversary-Related Resources". National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel. 2013.

[gid2-21] "Gideon vs. Wainwright 50th Anniversary Media Coverage" (PDF). Texas Court System (the judicial system for the state of Texas). 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]