Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 May	3 May >

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 keep--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Averill

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

No coverage in reliable sources other than passing mentions. No indications of any awards or anything else that would elevate her to WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. John from Idegon (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Variety called her a "TV writer to watch" in their top ten list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Passing mentions such as the one mentioned above are all you can find on her. That means she is not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 800 words [estimated] and a portrait photograph is not by any definition a "passing mention." Her imdb listing, detailing a rather extensive body of work in just 6 years, isn't a passing mention either. Bustter (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She created a series for CW, a minor network, after a term as primary staff on a highly successful major network series [which netted her Writer's Guild Award nominations in each of the past 5 years] -- her career trajectory alone, based on verifiable credentials, makes her notable. You aren't likely to see a lot of press for her from her time on staff of The Good Wife because only the show runners [in this case, Robert and Michelle King] are customarily permitted to discuss the show's creative aspects. Star-Crossed -- which is a pretty bad teen soap -- is likely to be cancelled, but her career is mostly ahead of her.Bustter (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a part of an article discussing several other folks, yes, the Variety thing most certainly is a "passing mention". It is NOT an article primarily devoted to her. And there is not one thing in the entry above that bestows notability. Notability comes from substantial coverage in reliable sources, not from being "good" at something, or even less from having the potential to be good at something. In a strange sort of way, notability is a "popularity contest". Not one where the person's popularity among fans or Wikipedia editors matter, but where there popularity with the media does. Her career trajectory, whatever that means, does not bestow notability. Coverage by reliable sources is what notability is all about. Show me some coverage, to paraphrase a movie. John from Idegon (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Variety article is relatively brief but it is substantive and makes an explicit claim for her prominence. As the creator of a broadcast network series, and the recipient of multiple coverage, I think there's enough here to sustain an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not provide a valid, guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, all three !votes reflect this notion to various degrees, and nobody other than the nominator has recommended deletion. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadist extremism in the United States

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

This article is completely biased and one sided. NovaSkola (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep No discussion of its 'one sidedness' is evident in the edit history of this article. The article is extensively documented. Just because the article content might be disagreeable to someone or another is not a reason to even consider deletion of an article from WP. Hmains (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented by nominator. Clear GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. If there is a content issue, deletion is not the answer. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether an article is biased or not is irrelevant to deletion policy. Bias can be fixed by editors; notability is a separate thing entirely, and this topic is notable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - I wasn't even aware of Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media, Thanks Eastmain for pointing that out :). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Bemerton

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

Small radio station with no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Broadcast stations are usually notable. See Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - I wasn't even aware of Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media, Thanks Eastmain for pointing that out :). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max FM

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

Small radio station with no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Broadcast stations are usually notable. See Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is one paragraph long, so there isn't really anything to merge. Sandstein 08:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maya the Bee (character)

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

Forced Afd. PROD was contested (albeit with a sockpuppet) and not qualified for an A7. The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. The sources listed only describe the book and the plot. Although she is a main character, I feel that she is not notable enough for her own article, but notable in context for the book. My preferred course of action is Delete and redirect/merge article into Maya_the_Bee. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per the all the above. G S Palmer (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Delete: there's nothing in this article worth saving. G S Palmer (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merge and delete is usually a bad choice; it makes proper attribution impossible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing worth merging, since the text is being added by a non-English speaker, and is generally worse than MT. If anyone can find anything coherent enough to be worth keeping, the facts it represents can be added in English to the main article. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Maya the Bee. Maya is a notable and popular character, but there's no need to create duplicate articles for the same topic. Anything substantial could be added to the main article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's a List of characters in Maya the Bee as well (and List of episodes of Maya the Bee too, though that's not really relevant here) - better to m/rd there or to main page? Better to get rid of the List pages? 206.117.89.4 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)[reply]
- I honestly don't know what to do with this page, which is why I have abstained from voting. I originally boldly redirected it, which got me a threat of being brought to AN/I. I didn't realize it at the time, but the article qualified for WP:G5 speedy deletion. Instead, I reduced it to just one or two brief sentences, and, at that point, my extensive edits probably made a G5 speedy delete impossible. I'd settle for redirection, merge, or deletion. Really, anything is fine with me, as long as that incomprehensible Russian-to-English translation isn't restored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in this article that isn't already covered perfectly adequately in the main article on the book. RomanSpa (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Martijn Hoekstra per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InformedPlanet

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

Could not find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources to establish notability of this company or their social network. Entire article is written like an advertisement.Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article seems to be almost completely promotional, and above reason (lack of third-party sources) is valid. ~ Anastasia (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio and a promo. --Glaisher [talk] 09:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Solomon (art dealer)

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

This appears to be used largely for advertising, almost no references for the content, and writing is very promotional. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consider A7 speedy. The only significant coverage in WP:RS is a puff-piece in the LA Times. The other references either make very oblique references to the subject, are self-published or primary sources or are links to 404 error pages. GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - here's my analysis of the sources: # 1 is behind a paywall, and is about the subject's mother, anyway. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. # 2 is a reliable source, but is sort of a feature. #s 3-6 are dead links. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about the paywalled bit - I don't subscribe and I could access it fine (outside the USA). But quite right - it's about his mother and makes one oblique reference to him in a picture caption. GoldenRing (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2014 (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 19:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Comment At the time I closed this earlier, an editor had been adding sources to the article that were not considered in the discussion. I'm reopening and giving this another week for further discussion and for the editor who had been working on it to demonstrate additional sources. See User_talk:Joe_Decker#Thomas_Solomon_.28art_dealer.29 --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as reads more like an advert than an encyclopedic article, If I'm totally honest Joe Decker was right to close this earlier. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can see Artforum reviews of exhibitions at his gallery and passing mention in articles about his parents, but nothing that indicates the subject to be of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC. I've had a look at the sources currently present (and corrected one URL) but the coverage remains scant, meaning that little of the currently included content meets the verifiability policy, with undue weight being placed on later aspects of the subject's life. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a personal advertisement. --ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuyu Pharma

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

Not notable - Other than the company's own website, the only references are a routine "company profile", a press release by the company and a scientific paper about one of the company's products. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Publicly traded company, but my calculation show it's only worth about $42 million. I'm going with weak delete. It has been around since the 1940s, one of the factories is now a museum, some of its executives are somewhat prominent and it is an international company, but I can't find substantial coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mz7 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Moses Schreier

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

Not notable. Unable to locate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cited sources are unreliable databases (IMDb, IBDb), simple database listing (AllMusic) showing he exists and a bare mention in the NYT. SummerPhD (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just looking at the Press page on Schreier's website, he's been written about in the New York Times, Variety, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and several other independent reliable sources. And looking at the Resume page of his website, he has three Tony Award nominations, six Drama Desk Award nominations (including three wins), and an Obie Award. On Google it looks like he's gotten a "bare mention", on up to a more detailed discussion of his work on different plays, quite a few times in the New York Times alone. I'd say he definitely passes the Wikipedia notability standard. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mudwater. On the basis of the renown of the award (and the likely press coverage in reliable sources that winning it would generate), I hold to the general proposition that all winners of Drama Desk awards are presumptively notable. Xoloz (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient evidence can be found of multiple awards in his field to establish basic notability. AllyD (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Schreier has just been nominated for a 2014 Tony Award and has received two 2014 Drama Desk nominations for his work on Broadway. I believe artist who have been nominated for Tony Awards and Drama Desk Awards are people of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiodrama (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, good point. Here's a reference for the 2014 Tony nomination, and here's one for the two 2014 Drama Desk noms. — Mudwater^(Talk) 18:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Cramp

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

Fails WP:ENT (one possibly notable role). Fails WP:GNG (lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources). SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NACTOR, we often delete BLPs of child actors who have only had minor roles. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced BLP, insufficient notability. Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diante do Trono. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ainda Existe Uma Cruz

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

Prod expired and it was requested to be restored. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2014 (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 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Diante do Trono. A search for sources did not turn up enough sources (in quantity or quality) to pass WP:NMUSIC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to artist article. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Diante do Trono. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear delete. Sockpuppets merely DETRACT from any possible arguments to keep, so you certainly did not do yourselves any favours the panda ₯’ 13:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akinwunmi Ambode

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}}.

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

Does not pass WP:NOTABILITY criteria Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 2 May 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 May 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NBIO failure.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Cwobeel (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Utterly non-notable. Thomas.W ^talk 21:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article's subject clearly meets the notability criteria - basic and additional. The article is based on four independent sources - more than many other articles on wikipedia! Manjudi (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single edit Manjudi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Do not delete and do not salt. I can confirm that this article meets both the basic and additional notability criteria. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubman (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've struck the vote. Don't vote twice in the same discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salting might be needed, due to AFD tag warring that forced protection. I can't see how the individual passes WP:GNG at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt as completely non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not salt. As the creator of this article initially, I can confirm that the created article (before Cwobeel edits that resulted in the current article) met both the basic and additional notability cum WP:BIO criteria. It is important that I mentioned that the current semi-protected article is by Cwobeel, and Cwobeel is requesting for the deletion. I guess Cwobeel request for deletion of Akinwunmi ambode's article may be connected with the fact that Akinwunmi Ambode which is already very popular in Lagos (A state with more than 5 million people in Nigeria) is fast becoming an household name beyond the shores of Lagos, and maybe Cwobeel is not happy with the development. Thank you all. Jubman (talk) 23:51 2 May 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I came across this article at the BLP Noticeboard. I have no agenda here. Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only one with an agenda here is you, Jubman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are not about the subject. Guy (Help!) 01:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Cwobeel nominated the article, and later also voted "delete". That's not good form, looking like voting twice. Besides, the actual vote was "Delete and salt", without a rationale. Could you explain what "salt" means, in relation to AfD?
Re Guy - Sources 1, 2, 4 and 5 are very much about the subject, re-telling his history in government service. Source 3 is his company's official website.
The edit-warring about the Afd tag is probably due to the article creator's inexperience, and is irrelevant to determine the notability of the subject. The notability of the subject of the article should be determined by the merits of the subject not the merits of the article's author, or the shape of the article.
In this case, to determine notability, we have to consider WP:POLITICIAN, and failing that WP:GNG. Question 1: Is "Accountant General of Lagos State" a statewide political office under WP:POLITICIAN § 1. ? Or, is "Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance of Lagos State" such an office? Question 2: Is Ambode a "major local political figure who has received significant press coverage" under WP:POLITICIAN § 2. ? Question 3: Are the stories in 4 different newspapers (perhaps more) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" under WP:GNG ?
I ask all the voters without a rationale to asnswer these questions, stating a rationale, and not just saying yes or no. I remind the admins among the voters that at your RfA you must have stated once to know something about AfD criteria. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: "Salt" refers to WP:SALT, i.e. protection of the article title name to prevent a recreation of the article, and is a term that is well known among most, if not all, editors who regularly take part in AfD-discussions, and thus isn't always linked. "Salting" is usually requested in AfD-cases where there has been a lot of disruption on the article (for example repeated deletion of the AfD-banner, as in this case), and where a number of newly created single-purpose accounts suddenly pop-up, !voting in the AfD as their first contribution to WP. No comment on the rest of your post. Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and link. Kraxler (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: From what I understand, nominators can also provide a comment for Keep, merge, delete, etc. Also, this is not a vote. Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- At AfD, nominators are supposed to make their point, including a rationale, in the nomination statement. They may later comment, or reverse, or withdraw, their nomination. To nominate for deletion, and then to vote again delete, is not good form. To vote again without giving a rationale is utterly useless, since not the vote tally but the weight of the arguments decides at AfD. Kraxler (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly being part of the government (and not its head) of a subnational entity probably does not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN. All that is known is that the subject is being bandied about online as he is tapped in a nepotistic manner to be the successor of Babatunde Fashola as a cursory google search shows. If he is the new governor, then he's notable. Until then, there does not seem to be much proof but there is a lot of promotional puffery.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ryulong - "Allegedly"? I thought there was consensus that Ambode held these offices. Questioning the established facts shows bias. Besides we have articles on, for example, Nicholas Van Vranken Franchot who was New York State Superintendent of Public Works, a statewide appointive office, and who was never Governor of New York. Please read carefully WP:POLITICIAN and then show me where there's written that somebody must be head of the government of a sub-national entity to be notable. Kraxler (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX, plus two NYT articles. Apples and oranges, as far as GNG is concerned. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know about WP:WAX. It says "The fact that we have an article on X is not an argument to have an article on Y". And that's quite right. In this case, Ryulong invented an amendment to the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, and I used an example to illustrate what the guideline really says, not to support the article up for deletion here. I hope you can see the difference. Kraxler (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: Judging by the article the post of "accountant-general of Lagos State" is not a political office, but a job filled by civil servants. The article says that Ambode was a civil servant for 27 years, up to 2012, working as permanent secretary of the Ministry of Finance from January 2005, and then given the additional responsibility of being accountant-general of Lagos State in 2006. So WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. In fact the article makes no claims what-so-ever of him ever having held a political office... Thomas.W ^talk 16:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a real argument. I hope this helps eventually the closing admin to come to a conclusion. Thank you, Thomas. Kraxler (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not salt.

I will like to add that some of the honors and career highlights of Akinwunmi Ambode include: 1) He had the second best result in entire West Africa in the Higher School Certificate Examinations of 1981. 2) He won the Federal Government Scholarship awards for Post-Graduate Studies. 3) He is Hubert Humphrey Fellow and a Fulbright Scholar (USA). 4) He has been recognized for positive contribution to Education by Lagos State University Alumni Association. 5) He won the “Most Outstanding Achievement Award” by the Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees, Lagos State. 6) He had recognition for Outstanding Excellence by Joint Tax Board (JTB)/FIRS on successful organization of the 1st National Tax Retreat in Nigeria. 7) He organized, in his capacity as Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, the first ever National Tax Retreat in Nigeria in conjunction with Joint Tax Board/Federal Inland Revenue Services in 2005. 8) He was the Chairman of the Technical Committee that produced the Lagos State Economic Empowerment Development Strategy (SEEDS) document.9) It is on record that he is the youngest person ever appointed as Auditor General in Lagos State, Nigeria at the age of 37. 10) It is on record that he is the first ever Permanent Secretary to retire voluntarily.

Besides, I observed that some parts of my earlier contribution ("Keep and do not salt") was with a line on it that makes it look as if I have cancelled it. I just removed the line before this post. I hope those doing such dirty action will stop the tricks and stop altering the comments of others like me, and allow the closing admin to have all the views without any deletion. Thank you all. Jubman (talk) 00:31 4 May 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your !vote since you can only !vote once in each AfD, and this was the third time for you. So please stop! Thomas.W ^talk 07:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been a substantial contributor to this article as I recognized Ambode as an important factor in the public life of Lagos State with 9 Mio inhabitants. [[User:Kraxler|Kraxler] has raised an important aspect in referring to the WP:POLITICIAN which includes "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Ambode has been part of local governments in many different positions, last being that of Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance. Further more, I believe he "received significant press coverage" as demanded by the WP:POLITICIAN. You can check that yourselves by searching for him on google. He is the subject of countless articles in the last few months. Villageboyban (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — Villageboyban (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide one or more reliable sources that unequivocally state that the post of "Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance" is an elected post, and that the holder of that post is a member of the legislature. Because current information points to it being a post held by civil servants. Meaning that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. And remember that the burden of proof is on you. Thomas.W ^talk 13:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not salt. Ambode is a well known former colleague of mine and is a man of great integrity. I plead with you to not take down this page as this is a great way with which we can reach out to many Lagosians on the internet and help them in choosing a really credible leader unlike times past. I assure you, people in Lagos do not object to him being on Wikipedia. He has also been highly accredited by Bola Tinubu who is here on Wikipedia and is a Nigerian statesman. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry McGuillit (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) — Jerry McGuillit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (The !vote on this AfD was the user's first and so far only edit on WP.)Blocked sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not a venue for reaching out to people. You have to show that this person is notable per this website's internal criteria for inclusion and not because the page can be helpful to people in Lagos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable here. You can call anybody you know in Lagos for a second opinion. In addition, we would not have put up the wikipedia page if we hadn't already done our due diligence to ensure the facts were right. Even Ambode himself approved the wikipedia page before our team put it up LIVE on Wikipedia, and before Cwobeel started witch-hunting us. Taking down this article will also result in a huge loss of capital we've used to promote this page on both print and new media here in Lagos. Please consider the above. Thank you all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry McGuillit (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is a valid reason for keeping an article about a non-notable subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social networking site or a vehicle for advertising and promotion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't here to protect your advertising investment, and I find it rather grating that your only concern is such. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no agenda here; I came across this article at the BLP Noticeboard. No one is "witch-hunting" you or your friend. Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please consider salting, considering the amount of determination and socking that has taken place. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - I wasn't even aware of Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media, Thanks Eastmain for pointing that out :). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banbury Music Radio

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

Small radio station with no evidence of notability, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Broadcast stations are usually notable. See Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Ecker

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

Not notable. Unable to locate substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seem to be enough reliable sources around to verify his career (though possibly not much more], and as a rear-admiral, he seems to just about meet WP:SOLDIER. I will leave others either to decide whether this amounts to notability or to find enough more reliable sources to make notability certain. PWilkinson (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have one source: an undated, unsigned biography published by the Coast Guard. "(I)f no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." - SummerPhD (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flag officers are considered notable under WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, (a flag, general or air officer) will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify..." which is great, because we need independent reliable sources: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." We still don't have them. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, by long-standing consensus all general and flag officers are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you have cited states there is a presumption that flag officers will have sufficient third-party coverage to pass. You are saying it does not matter, contrary to that guideline and core policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." You'll need to demonstrate a consensus to ignore policy and update the guideline you are claiming is defective. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given that we have no rules and decide these matters by discussion, you're going to have to demonstrate that this chap should be considered less notable than the many others of similar rank who have been kept at AfD simply because they held the rank. Sometimes a convention becomes a de facto consensus, and the general/flag officer notability convention is one of these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean WP:IAR. Essentially, your argument is that we should ignore policy in favor of your misreading of a guideline because your opinion outweighs the WP:CONSENSUS documented in both the policy and the guideline. That's an interesting interpretation. "Ignore all rules", however, does not mean we do not have rules or that we should ignore them simply because we want to. I might want to create an article about my fifth grade gym teacher, the garage band I play in or a card game I invented. The rules say these subjects are not notable unless "reliable third-party sources can be found". If Ecker is the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, he's notable. If not, "Wikipedia should not have an article on (him)" unless there is some reason to copy the whole pile of unsigned, undated press releases from the Coast Guard that this article's only source seems to have come from. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have any rules here. I fear that may be your misreading. We have policies and guidelines. We also have essays (one of which I've cited and one of which you have cited above in an attempt to clarify a policy). None of them are rules. What WP:IAR says is: "If a rule [follow the link to see why they're not actually rules] prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Since I consider it to not be improving Wikipedia by deleting an article on such a senior officer, that's exactly what I'm doing. Which guideline is it that I'm supposed to have misread exactly? You're free to disagree with me, but please don't start quoting rules-that-aren't at me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misread a guideline (WP:SOLDIER) to support your position. When clarified and shown that that misread guideline violated a core policy, you said there was a consensus to that effect. Questioned on that, you've decided to ignore all the rules that aren't rules. To summarize, you feel we should ignore our core policy (WP:V) and include him despite a complete lack of independent reliable coverage, regurgitate the Coast Guard press release (or whatever it is) as an article. Correct? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An odd statement, considering you completely misread WP:SOLDIER as being a guideline. It's an essay, as it clearly states at the top. Yes, that's correct. I'm expressing an opinion based on an essay which is widely-supported by those who write articles in this area (see this AfD, which has just been closed, if you don't believe me), as opposed to robotically regurgitating rules-that-aren't in an attempt to make Wikipedia into some sort of monolithic bureaucracy. In what way is deleting an article on an admiral improving the encyclopaedia? If he was a nobody, I'd be the first to agree with you. But he wasn't. He held a very senior military rank and people at that level are generally worth having articles about, even if the current article is pretty short. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am picking at nits with this trivial nonsense about verifiability. Yes, it is critical to note that it's an essay that is of no help here, not a guideline.

You are correct: He misread ~~a guideline~~ an essay in support of his opinion then decided to Ignore all ~~rules~~ non-rules that we call rules when the essay didn't support his view because he feels our core policies get in the way of what he wants. But I digress. If you'd like to keep the article -- and this is a radical idea -- you could find the sources we need but don't have. So far, there have been zero additional sources suggested. I've found nothing, you can do better. A crappy, unsigned scan from 1994 that has him very much still alive is all we have. In the 20 years since then, he supposedly did nothing else other than die. That's a remarkable tribute.

To summarize: The reasons to delete are that the article fails the very basis of the project and the essay that some would like to see support it doesn't support it. The reasons to keep are that someone wants to keep it. Compelling stuff.

You have a chance to show that the article can be improved. Or, you can argue that you feel the current piece of shit regurgitation is all that Admiral Ecker deserves. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep citing WP:V. Are you sure that's the policy you mean to be linking to? Because the article, poor as it is, is very much verifiable via a reliable source - I suspect you mean to be linking to WP:N? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:V We do not have reliable third-party sources, we have one primary source. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. All flag officers are generally considered notable by longstanding consensus. That consensus represents a particular reading of policy (in other words, the consensus is well aware of core policies, guidelines, and their relative weights.) Opposition to this consensus may exist; but, opposers should WP:AGF, and understand that those who support the consensus view are equally thoughtful, and that denigrating their view as foolish serves no useful purpose. Legitimate differences of opinion are not "misreadings." No one is misreading; people simply disagree, and should do so respectfully. Xoloz (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus documented? The ~~guideline~~ essay (which was misread) would seem to be where such a consensus should be documented, it isn't documented there. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:EDITCONSENSUS per the results of virtually every single AfD that's been held on a flag-rank officer. Being a cabinet-level government official is considered notable just for that; the same thing is (again, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS) considered to be the case once an offcer's shoulderpads sprout stars. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Building on The Bushranger's point, common AfD outcomes, which represent editorial consensus, are listed here. Xoloz (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"(G)enerally considered notable." ≠ "are notable." I'm bringing up the issue on the talk page for WP:SOLDIER as the pervading opinion here seems to be that flag officers are an exception to WP:V. If that is the consensus, we should document that. - SummerPhD (talk)

Comment - I have opened a discussion at WP:SOLDIER. This is an attempt to clarify and document the apparent concensus. This AfD seems fairly well snow covered. Assuming @The Bushranger: agrees, it seems the discussion here is about what WP:SOLDIER should say, rather than about Ecker in particular. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp Chris Troutman (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Other than his rank (and WP:SOLDIER which is a WikiProject Military History thing, not a WP-wide guideline), Ecker's "notability" relates to appearing before a number of Congressional and Senate Committee hearings in relation to maritime safety, and he presented at least one paper on that subject at a major conference. He was Chief of the Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services for the USCG in the 1990's, not sure how important a role that is. This from the single page of Google Books hits. On that basis, his notability per WP:GNG is marginal at best IMO. His gongs don't help him, as his highest is apparently Officer of the Legion of Merit, which is pretty much passe for a US one-star. I consider the one-star bit of SOLDIER to be blurry at the bottom ranks, so a one-star without clear notability per GNG is questionable. I would AGF and think he's got newspaper coverage no-one's bothered to look for yet. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs) per A7. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Austin Actor

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

No sources, Checked and this man does exist, but is still a bad article Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are a variety of opinions being advanced in this discussion, the couple of explicit "Keep" votes are either not enthusiastic, or not rooted in policy ("top ten" firms are not presumed notable, for instance). On the other hand, the deletion arguments, particularly the one advanced by User:StephenBuxton, are convincing and emphatic. Time to put this one out of its misery. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Geer

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

This article has been recreated 5 times, and all 5 incarnations have been identical, I still personally see no great significance for the article and feel it is blatant advertising, originally being created by a user with the username TGLaw and now those user(s) are using alternative names however are linked to this business. The recreated page could not be done on the original page Thomson Geer as an admin rightfully and purposefully blocked this from being created thus the creator used Thomson geer instead. My personal findings are that I have been more than patient and accommodating and that this page serves only to advertise the business "Thomson Geer" Law KaraokeMac (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My main issue with deletion here is that the sources do seem to imply some notability. That said, I also agree that the article is being used as a vessel for promotion. I'm having a stab at ripping those out, your feedback and/or assistance in this would be welcome. Furthermore, if you do feel that actions the originating editor(s) meet the definition of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, surely raising the matter at SPI would be helpful in controlling their promotional urges? Dolescum (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

- Hello Dolescum,

The user uses another article in their defense and whilst I feel it is promotional, I agree with the creator that page they have created does appear to be near on identical to the other article pertaining to a law firm Minter Ellison.

Re: sockpuppetry I believe they were advised to change their username so not to be too closely associated with the firm on Wikipedia, cannot recall who advised them to do this. So may not quite be to that degree as yet. But yes I think it is somewhat promotional --KaraokeMac (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say that the Minter Ellison article has a problem with promotion and COI, too (I've just tagged it as a reminder to myself get back to it later), but I'd think that is an argument based on other stuff and not really a good reason for deciding either way on this. I also note that there are three other accounts beside yourself and I contributing to that article, all of them new and only having contributed to that article. I shall leave any conclusions to the reader. Dolescum (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- So are you pro delete or against delete?

I'm sort of torn between now, I don't want to come over like the pantomime villain nor do I want to discourage new contributers but neither do I want Wikipedia being filled with adverts and crap. --KaraokeMac (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my !vote below, as it stands for the moment. As a grumpy wikipedian I delight in playing the pantomime villain, but perhaps it would be better to see how these new users acquit themselves and assume good faith for the moment, no? Dolescum (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, at the moment, having removed the promotional stuff I perceived. If it reverts to promotional, I reserve the right to shift to weak delete.

Weak delete Comes down to whether the references provide "substantial" coverage. I don't really see that they do, but it's a subjective evaluation. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The listed references all read as press releases, rather than actual news coverage. Can't see anything that is actually showing notability properly. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

- Hello all, thanks for all the input. I will try and keep this page non promotional. I am new to wikipedia, but can guarantee I have a lot of Australian legal knowledge to contribute on the back of this page. I stand by the argument that most other law firms use a similar tone. I will also work on the sources to ensure full and adequate media references. Thanks again Newuser — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the top ten in size, in a fairly large country. TJRC (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi all, thanks for the input. Can I assume that this is now closed? Am I able to remove the deletion box at the header of the page, or am I required to be an Administrator to do that? Australianeditor (Australianeditor) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for an admin to close it, or for an uninvolved admin to make a non-admin closure. As an involved editor, you (and for that matter, I) cannot close it. TJRC (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is not clear enough for a non-admin closure, so you're waiting on an admin. Crisco 1492? (It might also be relisted once more for more input.) czar ♔ 15:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no further !votes yet, so it's still neither here nor there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I stand by the argument that the Thomson Geer content is not dissimilar to the content found on many other Australian and international law firm entries. Some of these include, King & Wood Mallesons, DLA Piper, Minter Ellison, Clayton Utz, Gilbert + Tobin, Clifford Chance, Baker & McKenzie, Allens (law firm). They all appear to be promotional in nature. I look forward to working with you all to contribute to this page and the Australian law firm wiki entries in general. Australianeditor (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other Articles do it too is not a defense.SPACKlick (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't find anything of serious notability. I don't think companies, regardless of size, get articles without some public perception of prominence. SPACKlick (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2014 (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) 14:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. If this article is deleted and further sources are subsequently found, they can be noted at WP:DELREV. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Australia)

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

forking This and the additional Disney XD are forks and don't stand on their own for notability with most having primary sources. It probably easier to understand the Disney XD subject if all information is in one article instead of being duplicated in several articles. Most all of the information has been consolidated to the Disney XD article. Spshu (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because content forking:[reply]

Comment. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jetix (US) were there were multi-market articles with limited unique content. The result was delete. Spshu (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really similar; Jetix is a dead brand/band-aid to keep Toon Disney going until the XD rebrand, whose articles languished for years with only misguided nostalgia added since its end; deletion was justified there as there was nowhere else for the article to go. XD is still living and will probably be around for years. Nate • (chatter) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, it is similar. Jetix was a stand alone brand in Europe and were in some markets Toon Disney existed. Jetix and Toon Disney expressly merged into Disney XD while some Jetix were replaced with Disney Channels and one Toon Disney became a Disney Cinemagic. They have exist about the same time, five years. If you have bothered to look at the Disney XD articles they are similar to the various Jetix articles as they are primarily under sourced with a single source (some times just the national DisneyXD website or the same sources over and over) and/or duplicating programming sources from the main DXD website. They don't stand alone at this time; based on what sources are available now amounts to two articles at this point, Disney XD and Disney XD programming list. And are we not suppose to be globalizing WP not "Balkan-landizing" it through individual national articles. Spshu (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disney XD is an international franchise, where each channel has different details relating to launch, availability, schedule, reception, etc. If Disney XD channel articles are deleted that would give cause for deleting every international network, not just kids channels (e.g. Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, FX, FOX, Comedy Central, MTV, Discovery Channel, etc.). Forbesy 777 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So did Jetix. Most are Jetix or Toon Disney Channels that were converted to DXD. How many times can that be stated? You are mistaken that there will be no Disney XD article, there would be one article Disney XD. A sections in the DXD article can be developed if a great deal of detail for a particular market's channel is needed. Spshu (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But if it is included within one article it reduces the amount of information available regarding the international variations. It condenses an entire article down to a single paragraph which doesn't necessarily reflect the significance of the channel. Not to mention the fact that it would significantly increase the size of the main Disney XD article which is unnecessary. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all of these are valid channels. They all have different owners, content, and availability. Disney XD (Europe) is actually several channels, and could be split. 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All do not have different "owners". Only the Canada version is owned by any one but a Disney subsidiary (Astra Media Trust) and operationally wise are considered Disney Channels Worldwide units. All the Jetix channels were "valid" channels, but was merged together any ways. Being valid channels isn't a requirement. --Spshu (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An internationally successful franchise. 172.56.2.37 (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Exactly, it is one "internationally successful franchise", thus one article on the subject. Spshu (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the Disney XD article series is a complete WP:ADVERT-farm run roughshod by 'channel fans', but deletion is the last avenue that should be pursued. Sources should be found to keep these articles, and to mention local variations in sourcing, along with keeping control of the IP's. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's even ridiculous to do so. --John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this shameful lazy way of improving pages. I also want to merge the UK Disney page with the Old Fox kids page to improve its standard. IF others for other areas improve the page then it make them all better.

I think is shameful and lazy to fork all these channel market version then let them rot. Spshu (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not the most perfect article but AFD isn't used as clean up fixes, Utter pointless & not very well thought nomination IMHO!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When they are forks then yes AFD should clean up them up by rolling them up. None of the individual have been show to be notable on their own (may be the Canadian version might, but it has just a paragraph worth of information beyond the main DXD article). In the future the channel version might stand alone notability and content wise, but not know. Spshu (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with →Davey2010→ that it would be better for the articles to be updated and maintained than be deleted. It would be better for editors to take the time to outline the variations in the channels from the main U.S. Disney XD, expanding the articles to include as much relevant information as possible. I can't speak for the majority of the Disney XD articles, but in regards to the Australian version I have been the main contributor ensuring it has a detailed history and legitimate and reliable references. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 FK Sarajevo season

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

Violates WP:NOTSTATS. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." No attempt at sourced prose. Article only encourages similar unsourced repositories. C 679 08:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages under the same rationale:

C 679 08:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article does not fail WP:NSEASONS which mentions only "top professional leagues" not FULLY professional leagues. Agree WP:NOTSTATS is an issue here, but no indication that this is not a notable subject, given that in each occasion the club was playing in its country's top flight, finished high up the league, is an established club in that division and qualified for continental competition. Needs sourced prose added not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – NSEASONS also provides that "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory". These articles do not fulfil this. Meeting NSEASONS is not about picking and choosing, but an article should meet the whole guideline. These ones do not. C 679 20:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keep per Fenix down. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how you feel WP:NSEASONS is met, in light of the fact there is no "well-sourced prose"? C 679 05:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because NSEASONS says "should" not "must". Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument here. You agree NOTSTATS is an issue, and write that it "does not fail" NSEASONS, without providing any policy-based reasons to keep it. C 679 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain in what way it's not met? WP:NSEASONS says Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.. This team is in the top professional league in Bosnia (note, that NSEASONS doesn't say fully-professional, just professional). Sure, it needs improvement, and some more prose. But that's grounds to improve the article, not delete it. Nfitz (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I covered this in the opening statement., as of course this is the reason for nominating it in the first place. C 679 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain it simply, for not so bright people like myself then. Your only issue as far as I can see, is that it's missing a bit of prose, which isn't a firm requirement in itself. Surely your position then would lead to conclusion that article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2014 (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) 14:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly needs the addition of 'well-sourced prose' but articles on notable subjects should be not be deleted for lack of sources within the page only if such sources can be shown not to exist. The way forward is to tag the page for improvement and encourage expansion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete database entries are in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considering that the nomination was grounded in concerns about the article's sourcing, and a number of new sources have been added during the debate, the discussion does tend towards "keep", but it would be overreaching to say there was a real "keep" consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chulbul Pandey (character)

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

Not enough sources to prove notability. Also, the article is nothing other than plot summaries of the films he appears in. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, please see below. Multiple sources exist that were simply not used, article content and style would appear to be addressable through regular editing, and we rarely delete what can be fixed. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dabangg - there are only two films in which the charcter appears,not notable enough for an independant article, & as noted the article is nothing but plot summaries. It is also effectily unsourced.TheLongTone (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Chulbul Pandey Chulbul Pandey, Dabangg Chulbul Pandey (character)

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

Keep this BRAND NEW article and encourage the new article be improved, per WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:SOFIXIT... and WP:NFICT and the numerous available sources discussing and analyzing the chracter. A five minute search quickly found such as IBN Indian Express Bollywood Life The HIndu First Post Zee News NDTV (1) NDTV (2) NDTV (3) (and more) showing the character is spoken of quite a bit... and there are real-world considerations. The character is considered an inspiration by other actorssee Deccan Chronicle is to become a video game character see News Vala is being emulated in other films and by other actors see Times of IndiaDNA& ApunkaChoice, and even has a cult/fan following. I was prepared to opine a delete.... until my searches revealed how often this character is spoken of and analyzed directly and in detail in multiple reliable sources. If he were a real person, notability would not be in doubt. The topic needs expansion and use of available sources... IE: editorial attention, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing salvagable in the current version, but if MichaelQSchmidt or some other editor wants to userfy , that is an option as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)

Keep and improve - Upon a source review of those provided by User:MichaelQSchmidt above, the topic passes WP:GNG. That said, the article would benefit from copy editing to be more succinct and the addition of sources to the Biography and Game character sections. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd go along with the keep suggestions made above. --ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While I truly and sincerely applaud the forthright honesty of the editors who openly declared their COI, ultimately, that fact that there is a COI casts a shadow over their arguments. I am sure that they acted in good faith, but it is extraordinarily difficult to be truly objective about a person who you know personally. Looking over the contributors to this AfD, I only see a single person arguing to keep who does not have a COI. That is telling. If the subject of this article really is noteworthy, then eventually somebody who has no personal relationship with him will come along and write the article. And if that new article gets proposed for deletion, then people who have no relation to him will argue to keep the article, based on its merits. While I understand where the requests to salt the title are coming from, I'm not doing to do that; when a truly unbiased editor, with no COI, comes along and wants to recreate this article, they should be free to do so (providing, of course, the new article meets guidelines). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian H. Cameron

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

Little that is substantively different from the article that was deleted in AfD #1 a little over 2 months ago. A lot of added puffery this time around, many links to "about us" type of pages, a review board to note the subject's membership, an industry forum, and so on. This is now a very long and very detailed C.V. When actual reliable sources take note of this person, then we'll have an article. This is a textbook example of squeezing blood form a stone, to use the Wikipedia to advertise one's client. We have a rather apparent conflict of interest here, as one of the refs (that at first appears promising but is just to a blogger write-up) is to an interview with both the article subject and the article's primary contributor, "User:User:Nickmalik". Once again, the project is being gamed for self-promotion. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, User:Tarc has not read the updated article. Gartner articles are reliable sources (a fact that I verified with the discussion on reliable sources last month). Two Gartner articles detailing the value of Dr. Cameron's program, plus an A&G article detailing the importance of the FEAPO paper to the profession, are being simply discounted in your discussion. Add in the references from books and we have clearly crossed the threshold. I ask that you withdraw the spurious charge that Wikipedia is being "gamed." I am simply a new editor and have been learning on the job. Nickmalik (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article, and the sources you cite are not in-depth coverage of the person, only programs and related matters. As for "gaming", this all began a few months ago with a press release (since deleted from the website) from Penn St. crowing about the Wikipedia page's adding to the subject's notoriety. That's not a function of an encyclopedia, which is supposed to reflect what is already out there. This project is not another arm of your blog, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I was as upset at that press release as you were. I certainly had nothing to do with it. For other editors, that press release was issued by Penn State University and stated that Dr. Cameron's recognition was growing as evidenced by an article appearing on him in Wikipedia. The article did NOT say that Wikipedia was adding to the Dr. Cameron's recognition. Even so, it was inappropriate and it has been withdrawn. I believe it was a lapse in judgment on the part of a staffer at the University. That said, it has little to do with whether or not Dr. Cameron is notable. Is this the thrust of your concern... not whether he is actually notable, but whether the project is being manipulated? Because outside press about Wikipedia is not supposed to influence what goes on inside Wikipedia. Deleting an article because someone wrote about its existence would be a terrible precedent, don't you think? Nickmalik (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how Cameron is notable, and this article seems like a resume with some narrative added. --Kbabej (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

could you be a little more specific? Do you feel the sources are not sufficient? Do you feel that they are not reliable? With respect, simply stating that "you don't see" is a case of WP:JNN. Nickmalik (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:nickmalik here. The conflict of interest has been declared on the talk page. I openly and freely admit that I know Dr. Cameron. As a person who has had a huge amount of impact on the field of Enterprise Architecture, it is VERY difficult to find a significant person in the field of EA who does NOT know Dr. Cameron. However, there is no conflict in terms of incentives. There is no "client" relationship. He is a colleague that I respect. I have not now, and will never be, paid or incented or otherwise influenced to create an article that is outside the highest standards of Wikipedia.

As for "little changing since the first deletion," I maintain that the first deletion was in error as well. Dr. Cameron is notable. The first article failed to do a good job of describing his notability. As for the charge of puffery, 100% of the claims made in the article are truthful and backed up with cited 22 sources, most of which are not self referential. The reason for adding the list of boards and bodies that he is a member of, comes from the notability guideline for professors WP:PROF that indicates that membership of this sort is considered to be a contributing factor in establishing notability, as are prestigious presentations at national conferences (listed in the Ongoing Contributions section of the article).

The charge that the opening reference is self referential is flat out false. Most of the details of the LEDE came from two seperate articles by Scott Bittler of Gartner.

Realize that Dr. Cameron is an academic, and therefore notability of academics applies. WP:PROF defines an academic as someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. That said, Dr. Cameron doesn't fit neatly into the typical academic boundary. Most professors learn a field and then teach it, frequently in the same university. Dr. Cameron learned a new field, and then CREATED the department of the university to teach it. He is the Executive Director of the research center that studies that field and helps to develop it. The WP:PROF criteria says that this person has to be more notable than the average professor. Clearly these accomplishment alone meets that criteria.

WP:PROF also asks us to consider if he has had impact outside of academia, but only lists books as the way to do it. I charge that creating an international organization of organizations dedicated to create this new field, and to be recognized for it by invitations to present at prestigious conferences as the featured or keynote speaker, is sufficient to meet that criteria.

Part of the problem is the way that Wikipedia asks us to count things... number of citations... number of articles... number of boards... to create an easy metric. There is no easy metric here. As a new field, there are only a few journals that spend any time at all on Enterprise Architecture. The most established is "Architecture and Governance" which is a commercial magazine that has been continuously published for many years. That A&G thought to dedicate an entire article to Dr. Cameron and his accomplishments, immediately followed by the publication that he championed, the first international consensus on the field of Enterprise Architecture, should be sufficient... but that doesn't fit in typical Wikipedia guidelines because it will take another decade before other universities follow suit to create their own EA programs.

Dr. Cameron is notable in the field of Enterprise Architecture, which has precious few notables. Nickmalik (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for a year. No improvement over last time. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No improvement? The list of references has gone from a handful to 22. This is after REMOVING all but one of the references that were interviews by the media. Combining both academic and non-academic impact, the new article does a much better job of describing his existing notability. Nickmalik (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the wikipuffery there seems to be little meat here. There is no evidence that the subject passes WP:PROF, creating a degree program (the centerpiece of the article) is not a particularly unusual activity for an academic, and the level of sourcing for this activity also does not convince me of a pass for WP:GNG for it. Given the quick re-creation of a previously deleted article, salt might be appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject did not simply create a degree program. He created a program in a field where no other university in the United States had an existing degree program. Take this test: look at your own alma mater. Find a SINGLE degree program at that university that was offered there, first, before being offered anywhere else in the United States. Then find the person who created that program. I bet you won't get to the last part of that challenge, but MOST universities cannot claim to have created the first degree program of its kind... ever. Exceptions for some ivy league and large research universities. What university was the first in the US to offer a degree in Economics? Can you name it? Probably not. Was it important? Very much so. What the man or woman behind that shift notable? Not to you, perhaps, but to the people who would take that degree, in ANY university, very much so. Nickmalik (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or ~~Speedy Keep~~--When I have reviewed the submission, I did had a look on the past Afd. This time, the article is indeed much improved and its useless to go for an Afd. The herald 12:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the speed? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Going from "terribly sourced" to perhaps "weakly sourced" may be an improvement in a technical sense, but it isn't quite enough. All that was added was a hefty dose of prose and a reach for every faint name-drop in every trade publication the subject's friend could find. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question: why the speed? Is someone being injured here? Every one of your objections from last time has been addressed, with citations to WELL ESTABLISHED reliable sources (unless you want to start challenging that Gartner is not a reliable source). The Gartner articles are not name drops. They are ABOUT the subject. Nickmalik (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the article can then be trimmed that going for an AfD. WP:NODEADLINE..The herald 15:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No, you don't do this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. What do you not do? Challenge a mistake? Nickmalik (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't recreate articles on unnotable subjects because you personally know the subject. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Please note that I did not create the first article, and I went through the process of AfC to create the second. In both cases, other editors created the article.

I recognize and openly share the fact that I know the subject. On the other hand, the fact that I know the person does not mean that he is not notable. That argument is absurd. Most people who are near the top of their field know someone who is notable, either in their field or another field. We know notable people BECAUSE they are notable.

I know Dr. Cameron. I have not taken a class from him or any other class at his University. Neither myself nor my employer have any relationship with him, his college, or his Center for EA... certainly nothing financial. To be honest, I WP:DGAF. I am not concerned with whether or not he has a page. I am a little unhappy that a mistake made by a junior staffer at his university has triggered a series of events that has nothing to do with his notability. That's petty, and Wikipedia is not about being petty. It's about informing people and providing neutral and trustworthy information, free of promotion or bias (to the greatest extent possible). Deleting a page from a notable person as punishment for something that they had no say over... that's something we should definitely not do. Nickmalik (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim - I know Dr. Cameron a bit and I do believe that his contributions to the industry and notable and worthy of a Wikipedia page. That said, the current description is a bit "puffy" and could be tightened up. My real question is are there objective guidelines or tests that Wikipedia uses to determine if an individual is notable enough to warrent a page? Maybe I should have a page? We might need a voting process for certain unnusual situtations, but for the vast majority of individual there should be an objective list of criteria that should be used to qualify an individual or organization for a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschmidt163 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are criteria. See WP:NOTE, WP:PROF and WP:GNG Nickmalik (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (updated)[reply]

I find it difficult to put much weight into a call to keep by a) someone personally connected to the subject, and b) professes no knowledge of the notability criteria of this project. That amounts to an WP:ILIKEIT entry. Tarc (talk)

I agree Nickmalik (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add to the conversation. Xxanthippe gave a fairly spare answer that amounted to saying "just not notable" with no supporting rationale. Please exceed his contribution by stating why. Did you check the sources? Do you find them sufficient? If not, why not? Nickmalik (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep arguments, at least the most sensible of them that I can see here, seem to suggest that Wikipedia should recognize, more or less, an inherent notability to the creation of a new degree type. There is no argument presented here that the sources actually meet our usual bars, and the experienced and uninvolved editors in this discussion appear to agree, so ... let's turn to that inherent notability claim.

That is an interesting claim, and I will take a moment out of my usual role of adjudicating these sorts of discussions to instead add my own view--which is that that would be a poor thing for Wikipedia to do.

I do think there's a place for inherent notability criteria, such as those we use to good effect for certain types of politicians and award winners, where an objective bar gives such a strong presumption that there will actually be good sources about the topic that we can skip the process of actually looking.

I don't think that creating a new type of degree program, even an important one, reaches that bar. I can see where it might seem to, but I think that as an objective test, it's pretty weak--we don't have any inclusion of questions of the importance of the topic (maybe the degree was a good idea or a bad one), or the significance of that particular department topic, or necessarily a clear idea of how much or how little that individual played the role of creator of that department. It's a bad test, it would be bad precedent, and one we shouldn't set here, no matter what the result.

There are certainly other cases of academics who have created new types of departments in academic settings for whom we don't consider that achievement signficant. Just to pick one, our biography on Carver Mead does not mention his creation of the first degree program covering Computation and Neural Systems (although the latter (which may have a few problems itself) does mention the former.

I am not suggesting that we should not have an article on Mead! Mead's notability is, as is the case for most biographical subjects, evidenced by reference to multiple, independent, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of the topic. And that should remain the standard here, no matter the outcome of this particular discussion with respect to Cameron. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is a False Dilemma. The criteria for inclusion of a person in Wikipedia is NOT limited to situations where the article is "evidenced by reference to multiple, independent, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of the topic." Please take the time to consider the ACTUAL guidelines, especially WP:PROF which applies to academics. There are literally THOUSANDS of biographies in Wikipedia of academics whose WORK is the only thing cited, not the person, and that work is evidenced by reference to Google Scholar AS AN EXAMPLE.

The test is already included in Wikipedia, and it is not a bad test. The test, in WP:PROF, is clearly stated as such: "The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?"

The subject of this article clearly exceeds this bar. Nickmalik (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, in practice you can spot people who are going to pass WP:PROF by how frequently their work is discussed in other notable sources, and h-index is generally used as the proxy for that. Which is what? Their work being discussed in secondary, reliable sources. APT is rarely invoked, because applying comes down to providing evidence that someone surpasses it. The problem with your argument is that you claim the degree program creation is a major work, and yet, we don't have the sort of evidence we would require for WP:PROF in any other circumstances to show us, in an unbiased manner, just how big a deal that is. And so the argument fails for me. And the failure of the claim is only reinforced by the fact that the first other figure I came up with who shares a parallel accomplishment, well, Wikipedia considers that accomplishment so minor it's not even mentioned in the article on him. Hardly compelling stuff. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the thing. If Dr. Cameron writes a paper (he did) and it is cited over 50 times (it has been), that doesn't mean that the person citing the source is actually using his material. That alone means that he reaches your usual notability bar.

But citation only means that they have referred to a paper, not understood it or leveraged it. (I'm assuming you've read academic papers. I've written academic papers. Citing a source means very little outside "tipping the hat" to your peer). On the other hand, the sources that I cite do not just mention something that Dr. Cameron has written. They are writing directly and primarily about things that Dr. Cameron is **doing** and let's realize that doing is as important or more important than referencing. The authors of the papers I cite had to be intimately aware of Dr. Cameron's work in order to write those papers (all three of the papers cited fall into this criteria). The citation of three detailed papers that discuss the work of Dr. Cameron well and truly exceeds the value of 50 or even 500 citations of a paper that defines a term that has not been defined before. So, yes, he met the usual bar.

In addition, you mention a very small degree program at a single university. I get that. I graduated from a small degree program at my own university. But what the subject has created is not something that will stand alone. There are already competing programs in other universities (Kent State has an EA program as does one of the California universities, each derived independently. PSU was the first, not the only). In addition, one of those sources lists a number of other universities around the world that are developing or have developed EA programs, including ones in the Netherlands, the UK, and Australia.

Your comparison to the esteemed Dr. Mead is not valid, because Dr. Mead appears to have graduated 110 Ph.D. students in 20+ years. That's about four or five a year. Dr. Cameron's program will graduate undergraduate, graduate, and Ph.D. students at about ten times that rate. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, Dr. Mead's many accomplishments should NOT include the degree program because he is doing it personally. Dr. Cameron's accomplishment is institutional, systematic, and scalable. They are not the same. Dr. Cameron's is clearly greater and will have greater impact simply by counting the number of people who are involved and will graduate. Of course, that's not part of WP:PROF. This is a unique case.

Last statement: you started with "in practice you can spot people who are going to pass WP:PROF by how frequently their work is discussed in other notable sources". True... **some** of the people who will pass WP:PROF can be spotted that way, but WP:PROF specifically excludes professors who have produced citable papers as their only accomplishment. Not all people can be spotted here. I'm asking you to follow the actual guidelines, not the easy out that you may have followed in the past. Nickmalik (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Life Christian Center

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

A few months ago I proposed deletion (PROD), giving as the reason "Still unsourced after being tagged for over 5 years, and searches fail to produce any significant independent coverage." An editor removed the PROD, and added references to the New Life Christian Center's own web site, YouTube, and a copy of the New Life Christian Center's calendar. However, the article still has no references to independent sources, and it still remains true that there is no sign of significant independent coverage anywhere, as far as my searches can find. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas nominated, no independant sources to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TheLongTone. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I've just spent a rather unconstructive few minutes Googling "New Life Christian Center", only to discover what a common name for a church it is. I've also watched one of the church's videos, which left me feeling quite queasy. However, what I haven't been able to find is any independent media coverage of this organisation. It is, clearly, a thriving and highly profitable business, but in the absence of any references other than their own websites and publicity I think it has to go. If better sources of information subsequently become available, it will be easy to re-create this article at that time. RomanSpa (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a bad article, but if correctly classified (in the infobox) as a megachurch it ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus was to delete all five articles. If anybody wants to work on these (i.e. research and add the required sources), any admin can move the deleted text into your private user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maggs and Trish

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

No reliable evidence of notability. The Guardian page listed as a reference is not staff-written, but rather a reprint of a page at Last.fm. I don't think they charted on a recognized chart, and I don't think that digital distribution through RouteNote counts as distribution on a notable minor label.

The following articles are also part of this AfD nomination:

Rachel Osler
The Dunnes
Trish Dunne
Linda Brown (singer) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that shows how any of these artists meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 11:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This artist was signed with the label SONY but were dropped in the 1990's. I believe that there album Close To You was in the Irish Album Charts in the 1990's also. This artist has appeared on BBC radio stations to give interviews such as Radio Leeds, Radio Aire and Magic 828. Sources for this artist are difficult to find but I think the page should remain. The other artists should be deleted as they have no significance on their own. As with this page any information that isn't sourced properly should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.117.165 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless proper third party sources are provided. The article tells us they had a small amount of fame, and released notable songs, but gives no evidence of that. Saying your notable isn't really a notability claim. It is unfortunate that there may be sources that are hard to find, because they're offline, due to their age. But, the onus is on whoever wants inclusion to find them. --Rob (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be deleted until sources are found by this artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novasion (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way of taking the article offline without deleting it so that what is already there is kept until sources are found that way it would be less time consuming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandpa152 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandpa152: Yes, the article could be userfied if you intend work on it. — sparklism ^hey! 07:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't many sources online there may be some in archive newspapers from the early 1990's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.139.12 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and re-include if sources are found --User:oslers01 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Margaret Talbot, per WP:BAND. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Bay Area

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

Fails WP:GNG on every level. Brycehughes (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a hoax. I am sure the University of California would not allow this name to be used by someone else. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability as the only thing that can be confirmed is that it exists. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 18:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to UCSF This is not a part of the University of California. The one reference in the article is from a free web site and says, "jlknjinjinj". With 63 gHits, only two are for this topic, and both link to Wikipedia. The other Wikipedia link is List of colleges and universities in San Francisco. However, there is reason to delete and redirect to UCSF, for example, [1] , [2]...In both of these cases, if you look up the researchers mentioned, you find that they are faculty at UCSF. Unscintillating (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to University of California, Berkeley as most likely target if someone types this in error. this entity does NOT exist.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting may make the bay area institute appear to be related to UCSF. Maybe a (deleting and) disambiguation may do. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O manasa preminchake

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

Fails WP:NF. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No sign of notability. Being a "good film" by someone's standards does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of every movie ever made. It's not even worth me trying to clean up the formatting, etc to make it look pretty the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because this is so obviously not notable. I find exactly two trivial mention references for this film, nothing more. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per ESL - Clearly non notable and again it's just not worth fixing. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 20:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Dr Y. Sree Hari Gundu Hanumantha Rao Indrani (actress) Manik (actor) Sanjay King Kiran Rathod

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

Delete As above. Simply not notable. doktorb _words^deeds 04:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, by default keep. Everybody is welcome to add info to the article based on reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ttongsul

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

AfD Summary: No viable resource has been specified.

- The existence of such an item is highly controversial.
- None of the specified resources can truly be viewed as "verifiable resources" as stated below
- Three of the specified resources are based on two dubious sources (rocketnews24 and vice.com TV show) both of Japanese origin. (huffingtonpost & rocketnews24 as well as dailymail [vice.com TV show])
Reference 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/girls-tricked-into-drinking-feces-wine_n_2427138.html Refers to the Rocketnews24.com article
Reference 2: 일상 으로 본 조선 시대 이야기, Volume 2 Refers to a incomplete(?) Korean book at Japanese Google
Reference 3: Rocketnews24.com Refers to a Japanese news website.
Reference 4: naver.com Refers to a dubious article written in Korean on Naver.com (Korean news portal) lacking any further sources.
Reference 5: A Chinese book doesn't make it Korean.
Reference 6: As previously stated in this article's Talk section, it's very unlikely that such information comes from a book on organic chemistry.
Reference 7: www.dailymail.co.uk Sarah Griffith's article which is referring to the vice.com show as well.

As the rumors and invention of the existence of items such as the fictive 'Ttongsul' originate from the Japanese-Korean dispute.
This article is derogatory for the Korean culture as is, it does not only "scream of anti-Korean propaganda" it is anti-Korean propaganda based on invalid information. You may also want see the talk page for other opinions on this article (Talk).
You can find more information here (article and comments): http://kotaku.com/anger-over-korean-poo-wine-video-1200257493

Note:
This article previously has been marked for speedy deletion as in my view it's a sort of racism that doesn't belong on Wikipedia - Reasons
G1. Patent nonsense: implausible theories, fictional material, coherent non-English material,
G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose: article suggests Koreans alone would ingest fecals (?),
A11. Obviously invented

- were not reason enough for a speedy deletion according to user GB_fan Ryohka (talk) 06:07, 2 May 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 May 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG keep. There are countless valid sources and historical korean documents regarding korean faeces wine ttongsul. Sorry Ryohka, Wikipedia does NOT censor unsavory articles about south korea purely because it paints a nation in a negative light. (Redacted) Ryohka has also raised and got the the south korean wikipedia article ttongsul entry deleted and attempted to hide any trace of this [3]. (Redacted)
Korean net users PLEASE DO NOT blindly attempt to censor wikipedia and blame Japanese with groundless claims! thank you Debunkpropaganda (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Debunkpropaganda

I'm sorry to disappoint you Debunkpropaganda, neither is my account a "sockpuppet account" nor am I Korean.
I'm not even remotely Asian. I was born in Switzerland and am Caucasian/white.
How about you show/name us some of the "countless valid sources and historical korean documents regarding korean faeces wine ttongsul" ? thank you

Whatever source I found about that feces wine is of Japanese origin, as stated on the deletion project page.

I'm not even trying to blame Japanese for anything, as I'm a great fan of the Japanese culture itself, so please do not attempt to make any false accusations.

This is not a blind attempt to censor Wikipedia in any way, it is an attempt to keep racism away from Wikipedia in order to make it a reliable resource again.

Dear GB_fan

Instead of reverting each and every change I'm making, why not provide some constructive idea why you would want this lie to be kept?
I've moved Debunkpropaganda's accusations to the talk page, yet you have reverted them to the project page.. so let's talk on the project page if in your view it belongs here.
Ryo «message me» 11:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- All I did was revert the inappropriate removal of a recomendation for the article to be kept. This page is the appropriate place for that statement to be made. You do not get to move other editor's comments and hide them on the talk page. This page is for that discussion to happen. I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. I have looked at none of the sources and do not plan on doing it. I declined your earlier speedy deletion because none of the criteria you tagged it with applied, as I explained on my talk page. This discussion will go for a minimum of seven days and then an uninvolved admin will assess the consensus and close the discussion. GB fan 11:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't hiding them intentionally, as I understood it the talk page are for discussions. If that is not the case, indeed it belongs here. As you seem to be a quite engaged admin, I'm sure you know what I mean by Wikietiquette. As the content of the statement isn't quite helpful, I hope you do understand why I'd put another delete below (I'm totally new to this /hints/, as I've never been this disgusted by a Wikipedia article ever before).Ryo «message me» 12:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Generally talk pages are for discussion, but in the case of AFDs the discussion happens on the main page and the talk pages are rarely used as the discussions are revelevant to the question of deletion. In this case, this conversation should probably be held somewhere else. If you want to continue, please either come to my talk page or start a conversation on your talk page. GB fan 13:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete. As still nobody could provide any viable information. And yes I have initiated the deletion of the Korean article as well. As that one is mere a mere spam page without any resources either (not even invalid ones). I still would like User GB_fan to speak up on why he'd claim the need for this article to exist. Ryo «message me» 11:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, I have never claimed this article should exist, just that the speedy deletion criteria did not apply and that an editor's !vote belongs on this page, not the talk page. GB fan 11:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clearing up that your intentions are on neutral ground. Although if you looked at some of the sources in the article you had figured multiple speedy deletion criteria are given. No problem.. we'll go by AfD proposal and I hope I won't have to do it again later.Ryo «message me» 12:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1. Reliability. The claim by the AfD nominator reproduced below is just a personal opinion:

“As the rumors and invention of the existence of items such as the fictive 'Ttongsul' originate from the Japanese-Korean dispute.

This article is derogatory for the Korean culture as is, it does not only "scream of anti-Korean propaganda" it is anti-Korean propaganda based on invalid information. You may also want see the talk page for other opinions on this article (Talk).

You can find more information here (article and comments): http://kotaku.com/anger-over-korean-poo-wine-video-1200257493 ”

I wonder - Is the AfD nominator claiming that every source cited in the article is unreliable but comments in the talk page and kotaku.com are reliable? Can the AfD nominator provide objective criteria for claiming that, for example, Gyeongnam Ilbo (a source cited in the article) is less reliable than comments in the talk page?

2. Controversiality. The following claim by the AfD nominator is not a valid reason for deletion.

“The existence of such an item is highly controversial.”

If the subject matter is factually controversial as the AfD nominator claims, a description of the controversiality can be added to the article, based on verifiable sources. There are many articles on controversial topics, such as Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, and Liancourt Rocks disputes. De 4 de 171 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC), slightly expanded by De 4 de 171 (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC), De 4 de 171 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reliability

The claim is not just a personal opinion as you can take from the Kotaku post as provided per se.

I wonder - Is the AfD nominator claiming that every source cited in the article is unreliable but comments in the talk page and kotaku.com are reliable? Can the AfD nominator provide objective criteria for claiming that, for example, Gyeongnam Ilbo (a source cited in the article) is less reliable than comments in the talk page?

The Gyeongnam Ilbo article has recently been added by Phoenix7777 (on 5.May 2014). As far as I can tell it is as reliable as all other articles specified for either keep or delete as it does not provide any sources. I wouldn't claim that Kotaku was a more or less reliable source.

If you search for "ttongsul" on google, you'll see at least 10 pages of articles in every thinkable language, all based on the "rocketnews24" and the "VICE" 'contributions'.

While I'm at it - citing or specifying an article as a reference that is based on one and the same article which already had been stated as a source further below in the same Wikipage, whatsoever doesn't exactly contribute to the reliability. (i.e. The Huffington Post or Sarah Griffiths [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2398130/Ttongsul-bizarre-traditional-Korean-rice-wine-uses-human-POO-heal.html Daily Mail UK arcticle). That only adds up to the belief somebody thinks for better or for worse that he's got to prove the existence of something inexistent, in my opinion!

However before the issue went viral with Vice's show, you could literally find nothing about it anywhere. It seems very odd to me that if you search for it now you'd find out it's based on either of the named articles (which aren't of Korean origin at all).

2. Controversiality

Of course I fail to see how Nessie, Yeti, the Falkland Islands sovereignty or Liancourt Rocks disputes would impute a rather disgusting culture to an entire nation, which is widely believed to be a myth. --Ryo «message me» 10:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, though I hope you avoid derogatory labels such as “disgusting culture”, respecting cultural differences.

Your comment on 1. Reliability. A red herring. You avoided answering my yes/no questions.

Your comment on 2. Controversiality. Another red herring. What you did was to have recourse to a personal opinion again. You should provide Wikipedia policies which support deletion of an article because of controversiality of existence of a subject matter. (By the way, I fail to see how the phrase, “which is widely believed to be a myth,” a part of the personal opinion, is related to the status of the article. Cf. “The scientific community regards the Loch Ness Monster as a modern-day myth”, according to the accepted article, Loch Ness Monster.) De 4 de 171 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are new Korean sources added to the article after your nomination. It is good to have sources independent of the single rocketnews24 article. At any rate, what did you intend by making the following comment?

“Reference 2: 일상 으로 본 조선 시대 이야기, Volume 2 Refers to a incomplete(?) Korean book at Japanese Google”

Does use of Japanese Google mean that the Korean book is unreliable? You can locate the book, using, e.g., WorldCat. Its copies are owned by Harvard, CUNY, Duke, and other libraries around the world, so you can borrow one. Please show properly that every source cited in the article does not pass WP:VERIFY or WP:RELIABLE, without recourse to personal impressions. De 4 de 171 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strong argument made by user Ryohka. The article is badly sourced and written. I made independent searches for sources and found nothing new. If no reliable sources can be found, it should be deleted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong ... badly ..." - they are just subjective impressions. The request is simple. Please show properly that every source cited in the article does not pass WP:VERIFY or WP:RELIABLE, without recourse to personal impressions. Thanks. De 4 de 171 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on the fence What we need is someone who speaks Korean, who doesn't have a dog in this fight, to review Korean-language sources. If this thing is covered in sufficient sources, ideally from Korea, it should be kept, but the sources used should be focused on high quality ones, not things like Vice. There are many people in India who drink urine, for example, so the idea of consuming human products is not totally bizarre, but I think we need confirmation of the sourcing before keeping.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if it didn't historically exist as a medicinal practice, the concept still exists as something documented in culture, there are numerous mentions of Ttongsul in third-party sources. In that case, the article should be worded that it was "allegedly a traditional medicinal preparation, according to X and Y". The concept, real or not, seems to meet notability standards; whether or not it is real is up to debate, however this is a content issue, and not an AfD one. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it a racist hoax? Maybe, I don't read Korean nor do I have any special knowledge of the topic, so I can't say for certain either way. However, there seems to be enough written about this that regardless of whether it's real or not, the concept has become notable. Of course, if it is a load of crap (sorry), then that should be noted prominently in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of educational institutions in Lahore#Primary and secondary educational institutions. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benison Islamic School

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

NN school through grade 8. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for such schools. This article was deleted by unanimous delete !vote at a prior AfD, but was subsequently recreated. Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is common practice to redirect non-notable schools to their localities. In this case, the target is List of educational institutions in Lahore#Primary and secondary educational institutions where the school is already listed. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of educational institutions in Lahore#Primary and secondary educational institutions per Gene93k. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue filmmaker

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

I boldly redirected this article, but that got reverted. So, here we are. This is an essay about a commonplace phrase that has no specific notability (or definition) of its own. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, seems to be a neologism. It has a few hits on Google, but not anything reliable nor anywhere near enough to justify an article or merge. I'm not opposed to a redirect, but this seems like an incredible obscure synonym for guerrilla filmmaking. Under redirect policy, redirects that are "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" should not be created. ~~However, if the phrase is actually common as the nom claims, then it should be redirected.~~ Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - I don't think the nominator meant "commonplace" as in, "commonly used", I think he meant "not unique" and not notable enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. I agree. Stalwart111 09:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's about as common as any other random combination of adjective + noun, and it describes no specific movement or ideology. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we're all on the same page. I'm removing the redirect suggestion from my comment. The contention (even from the supporters) is that these things are not synonymous. That means we shouldn't have a redirect. But it doesn't mean that the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Favour"regular" deletion unless someone can provide some evidence that it is in any way notable. Stalwart111 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When the University of San Francisco offers a specific course on Rogue Filmmakers and famed Hollywood director, Werner Herzog, started a school to specifically teach the Rogue Filmmaker style, the term Rogue Filmmaker warrants a place on Wikipedia. filmstar213 (talk)

Delete While these two words make a sometimes used phrase, there is not a consistent meaning to it. For instance the USF course looks at innovators such as Alfred Hitchcock and Woody Allen who worked within the system, not the outsiders and "guerrillas" the article focuses on. A redirect to Guerrilla filmmaking would not be correct. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rogue Filmmaker is not the same thing as Guerilla Filmmaking. Unlike Guerilla Filmmaking whose intent is to simply create low budget films using innovavion to replace costly equipment or cheating shots, Rogue Filmmaking is a direct challenge to the Studio System with the creation of high quality content using a larger pool of resources. Rogue Filmmakers utilize all resources including comparable budgets to Studios and also may employ Guerilla Tactics if needed to supplement. Rogue Filmmaking is most commonly seen with intermediate professional filmmakers who have spent time within the Studio System and thus go Rogue outside the Studio System to produce comparable quality content. Rogue Cinema does not qualify as simply independent because it may utilize Big Studio Resources as well as Indi Resources Combined. The most classic example of a Rogue Filmmaker was Charlie Chaplin who stepped outside of the Major Studios to create Charlie Chaplin Studios and partner with First National which was considered a Rogue company working against Paramount Pictures. RoguelIndoconsortium (talk)

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

Do you have any reliable sources backing up these claims? If not, the claims are just original research. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete term is not in general usage. If, somtime in the future, it does become a common term the article can be resurrected. MarnetteD | Talk 21:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This term is widely used by filmmakers, especially in Hollywood and Los Angeles, and I think there is some confusion by non-industry insiders. Originally, an independent film was a movie produced with a specific vision that was made with the understanding that there was no major studio behind it to fund it or to distribute it. Eventually, it took on the definition of any film produced without funding by a major Hollywood studio system. The emphasis on the funding denigrated the original mission of independent filmmakers because then a movie like Lord of the Rings despite being distributed by New Line Cinema, a subsidiary of Warner Bros., would qualify as an independent because outside investors put up the initial money to make the high budgeted trilogy. Also, with the popularity of A-List actors flocking to do independent movies during the height of the Sundance era, major studios decided to create indie film divisions because they saw it as a cheap way to make movies using A-List actors for smaller films and thus saving a lot of money. These films became about low budget with big stars, but were never able to really connect with audiences and many of the major studios shut down their indie film labels like Warner Independent, Paramount Vantage, and others. Now, there seems to be quite a big confusion among some of the posters here that Rogue Filmmaking may be a possible redirect to Guerilla Filmmaking which would be in error. Guerilla Filmmaking was a movement that essentially focused on making no-budget movies while disregarding permits, stealing shots and locations, and quite often pulling off stunts that put cast and crew in danger. Whereas Rogue Filmmaking is a movement unto itself focusing on counter programming against the studios, often made by studio insiders dissatisfied with the creativity within the studio system, and focusing more on the quality, art, and story of the content. Therefore, the term Rogue Filmmaker should be kept for inclusion. impactview | Talk — Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lovely essay but your personal reflections on the use of the term do very little (nothing at all, actually) to substantiate the notability of the term. For that we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. In this instance, we would need reliable sources to verify your claims above. Stalwart111 05:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, if you have any reliable sources supporting your claims, please share them. If reliable sources exist, then the article may meet notability requirements and many of us may be convinced to change our votes. However, just arguing that the article is notable without backing up the claim with sources is just going to result in a delete outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome these healthy discussions of the terms Independent Filmmaker, Guerilla Filmmaker, and Rogue Filmmaker. What is notable is that if some of the same logic were to be applied to the terms Independent Filmmaker and Guerilla Filmmaker, they would not survive the scrutiny to even be listed on Wikipedia. The term Independent Filmmaker is debated ad-nauseum by Hollywood Filmmakers. Ask any filmmaker what is an independent film and you will notice rather quickly that there is no consensus of a definition. The definition I referenced is from the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) which has been running the American Film Market (AFM) annually in Santa Monica for over 25 years. THE AFM is one of the top 5 film markets in the world (if you do not believe me or want a reference, please ask any of the 400 independent film sales agents that setup shop each year in Santa Monica). The reference to Lord of the Rings in terms of it qualifying for independent film status was also provided by IFTA. The position of IFTA is that any film financed 51% outside of the major Hollywood Studio system is an Independent Film. (http://ifta-online.org/sites/default/files/FAQs_updated+Sep2013.pdf). Tell this to an independent filmmaker and sit back and watch the fireworks as heated arguments flare up. If we look at the logic of the discussions above, they would most likely bar Independent Filmmaker from inclusion on Wikipedia as there is no real definition. Now, if we look at the term Guerilla Filmmaker, that is another source of wide debate with a lot of people using it interchangeably with Independent Filmmaker. This would be incorrect because Guerilla Filmmaker is a subset of Independent Filmmaking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_filmmaking). Again, even amongst filmmakers, there are debates as to what truly is a Guerilla Filmmaker. I invite anyone to ask a filmmaker what is an Independent Filmmaker or a Guerilla Filmmaker and to define these terms and you will see that they cannot consistently do so. These riddles may never be resolved which is no surprise why there is much debate here for Rogue Filmmaker. The term Rogue Filmmaker which is also a subset of the Independent Filmmaker movement is widely used just like Guerilla Filmmaker or Indie Filmmaker. Just Google the number of film production companies and related entertainment media companies and you will see something very common, many include the term Rogue in their company names. Why? Because that all strive for that authenticity of true independent filmmaking which is separate from Guerilla Filmmaking which really just stands for no-budget filmmaking. Therefore, the term Rogue Filmmaker should be kept. impactview | Talk — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On Wikipedia, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Independent filmmaker and guerilla filmmaker both meet this criteria, even if these sources disagree with each other. If you could provide a link to 4 or 5 sources on rogue filmmaking that meet the above requirement, then this deletion debate will likely end in a keep. Otherwise, this article will almost certainly end up deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think every serious artist has to be at least a bit of a rogue, that is willing to break or bend the rules of his/her medium. Kitfoxxe (talk)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. The infringement dates back to the very beginning of the article, and it was previously deleted in 2006 for the same reason. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Giordano

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

Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:ACADEMIC Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 2 May 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 May 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 20 papers in GS with over 200 citations give a very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, but puffery needs much pruning. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. That's 20 papers in GS with over 200 citations each. A very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, as Xxanthippe says, and a complete failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nom. -- 101.117.89.99 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying what I meant to say. I second your sentiments. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. But it looks like much of the text of the article was copied or closely paraphrased from this source; it may need to be stubbed down. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter William Armstrong

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

This reads like a resumé/CV. Except for bot fixes and general housekeeping, it has not changed much in five years and the creation comment was "Asked on the new page notice board about thsi and didnt get a response so thought i'd make the page and wait for feedback.". So here is some feedback: it looks like a resumé. It's not written in encyclopaedic style, it is poorly referenced, and although he won a BAFTA so what? People win awards in all kinds of industries, it just happens to be one where you get on telly when you do. Not really notable person, by Wikipedia standards. Might be by BBC or BAFTA standards, but Wikipedia is not the BBC or BAFTA. The first two hits on Google are to this Wikipedia article, so obviously he is not notable even at the BBC or BAFTA. The slighltly high hit rate lately (to the tune of ten hits) are probably 2 mine and some others coming from the discussion of ~~Oneworld.net~~ OneWorld.net at WP:RFD; typically gets less than five hits a month. He is mentioned as the editor of Domesday vol. 2 here at the BBC but so are loads of other non-notable people. Si Trew (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Appears to meet WP:ANYBIO (subject has received a BAFTA). A poorly-written article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Suggest tagging with {{like resume}}. --N Y Kevin 04:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was not just any old BAFTA but a Lifetime Achievement Award. Move to Peter Armstrong (producer) like others in Special:Search/intitle:producer – I would do it now but do not want to confuse this AfD. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reads like a resume, yes. Needs moved to producer title, yes. However, it is sourced now, even though Domesday doesn't even mention him in its article here. — Wylie pedia 07:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based purely around the notability arguments, this close should not be interpreted as taking a stance on either side of the "exploited" question, which is irrelevant for the purposes of a Wikipedia AFD discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie Ziegler

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

Child whose borderline notability comes from being exploited by the entertainment industry in sexualized shows. We of course need an article about the show, and I can see including the childrens name in that article, But highlighting it with an article is a clear violation of child protection. The situation is a little different than some of these articles, because she was 9, not 6 at the time of the abuse, but I think that still qualifies as child. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Dance Moms. This actress does not seem to be known for anything outside of Dance Moms. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dance Moms and per nom. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 08:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To be honest I've been between keep & delete for the last 2-3 days, Whether she was exploited is another discussion for another day, We're NOTCENSORED and thus I believe it should be kept per that, As per below she's appeared in a music video so the notability is there. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, then recreate as a redirect to Dance Moms. Mabalu (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep not quite sure what the nomination justification that she is "exploited" by the entertainment industry has anything to do with her notability. Being featured in the recent Chandelier video suggests that she does more than simply being associated with Dance Moms. Sounds to me like the nominator has a serious case of PoV bias. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to know what Wikipedia policy is being violated in this case? Is it the fact that she isn't notable, or is there some WP policy regarding "exploitation" of children in articles that I am not aware of. I find the grounds of this AFD and the votes dubious. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that she stars in the new music video of Sia (Chandelier) changes the perspective concerning her fame. Mro (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqur Rahman

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

According to the article the person is renowned Industrialist and philanthropist but After having searched the internet to see what the subject has been doing & about the person, i didn't find anything & I am not convinced that he meets notability requirements. (N.B. 5 References are given in this article but only two (3,5) references are related) Aftab1995 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also AfD discussion about this person on bengali wikipedia. --Aftab1995 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been said by Aftab1995 only reference 3 & 5 are related to the article, i'm agree with him. facesofbangladesh website is not notable enough for BPL which actually covered by reference #3. After googling the subject, materials i've found not convinced me enough. I rather suggest to Delete. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Pass WP:RS & WP:GNG, it has a list of WP:CITE but I think this article needs a bit of time to improve. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 17:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any significant coverage or any reliable sources anywhere. then how this article pass WP:GNG -_- ? --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as current references don't seem to demonstrate notability. Userfy may be an option to allow for Bangladeshi sources to be found, but the deletion discussion at bn.wiki pointed out by Aftab1995 seems not to have turned up anything yet either. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable person Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ananas Garde

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

Probable hoax, only two unreliable sources, possibly self-made websites/blog. Phill24th (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found for this "movement"; appears to fail WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 01:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (even speedy maybe?) per WP:MADEUP Jinkinson talk to me 02:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia patrols (London)

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

Quite a minor WP:NOTNEWS story and part of a continuing (possibly racist) campaign by various accounts against Anjem Choudary, as anyone reading them will see. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Per reasons above. Badly sourced and undue weight. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Black Kite for pointing out what a racist I am. What happened to WP:GNG? This is a story that has gone on for over a year now and has been covered by the likes of the Telegraph and (for you wacky online-only kids) the Huff Post. We demand coverage in secondary sources. We have such. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andy. Sorry if an article which is sourced to many reliable sources with significant coverage from early 2013 to present offends some editors, or if an article about Moslems in London patrolling streets to impose Sharia law might reflect badly on someone's religion, but it satisfies WP:N and overcomes the hurdle of WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG per ongoing news coverage over a significant period of time (over a year). The topic does not qualify for a WP:NOTNEWS deletion due to this ongoing significant coverage that the topic has received. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic had very significant international coverage last year when the story broke and the topic has continued to appear regularly in the news ever since, most notably when the trials of the members took place. There was further international coverage by ABC just two weeks ago and it was in the Mail within the last week too so no shortage of ongoing coverage either. The article does still require significant expansion, for example there's no mention of the "landmark" nature of the ASBO imposed on those convicted[4], and it would be useful to mention wider issues and other incidents such as the "“Sharia-controlled zone" posters that were installed earlier.[5] Anyway, the fact that it's far from complete isn't grounds for deletion. If people are struggling to find sources, then search for "Muslim Patrol" as that is the more common term the media use for this topic.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After giving this some thought, I am changing my vote from Strong delete to Weak delete. Although it doesn't seem to be a particularly large group of Muslims who did take part in the Sharia patrols, the extremity of the situation did draw media attention towards them. The article would definitely need rewriting if it does remain though. The way it is written currently makes the incidents look much larger and more significant than the events that took place, as if it were an ongoing series of frequent attacks. As it stands, the article is weak, but it does portray an incident that received some press coverage. I also think that, despite the significant amount of right wing editors who are putting edits towards the article, and the not small potential of them expressing racist feelings in doing so, this should not in any way affect whether the article itself should exist or not --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per reasons given by Northamerica1000 - above all WP:GNG. Alfietucker (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to add, the link to Choudary was made by me, and is entirely due to the evidence provided by the reliable sources I discovered when checking/filling in details in this article. The claim by the OP that this is "part of a continuing (possibly racist) campaign by various accounts against Anjem Choudary" is patently absurd: I had made no edits whatsoever to the Choudary article until I started getting involved with this one. I would remind that editor to please assume good faith - taking the line "guilty until proven innocent" is not the way to open dialogue with other editors. Alfietucker (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above - Clearly passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. 75 * 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate on that? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thirstin Howl III

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

Virtually unsourced promotional advertisement for a rapper, so appallingly badly written that I can't make heads or tails of whether he actually passes WP:NMUSIC or not (I actually considered speedying it as a G11, it's that bad.) The only source being cited here is his bio on his own webpage, a primary source that does not demonstrate notability. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the article can be rewritten in a properly encyclopedic format that cites a proper array of reliable sources, but he's not entitled to keep this. Delete. Note also that if it does get deleted, the two albums of his which also have articles, Skilligan's Island and La Cura, will also need to be deleted under CSD A9. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find one possible source [6], and apparently Eminem guested on one of this tracks [7]. I do not know how reliable Hip Hop DX and Complex are (and at any rate, the Complex article really only talks about Eminem's contribution). If kept, the article needs a major rewrite, pretty much from scratch. — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: An eminent article. It could use a scrubbing and more references, though. No More 18 (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep certainly notable—The Source's Unsigned Hype, once the most famous column in rap [8], plus [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] & 200 words in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music. But currently a blp with no sources. 78.18.102.158 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally agree with nom - I can't make any sense of it neither, IMHO it needs WP:BLOWNUP & rewriten, Anyway non notable rapper fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by User:78.18.102.158 look good (well, except for the one from XXL, which just lists rappers who wear Ralph Lauren gear. I think he clears the notability hurdle, and AfD decisions should be made based on the notability of the subject, not the state of the article (WP:BLOWUP is just an essay, not policy). Again, though, a major rewrite is in order. Even if it's just a stub. — Gwalla | Talk 16:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep All the bad writing comes from a text dump by one user, ending with "SKILLIONAIRE press kit". That edit should be reverted as possible copyvio and the article be completely rewritten. (though maybe some of the guest performances listed in there can be added to a list) Don Cuan (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Vickers

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional Article created by sock puppet to promote the subject directly and indirectly. References are mostly primary, dead link and or content not in citation given. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- GreenC 04:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find passing quotations from the subject in articles of finance and on Puerto Rico but nothing to establish the subject as being of encyclopaedic biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveCollab

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ActiveCollab

Articles for deletion/Active Collab

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

This article is about a web tool that fails WP:N and WP:WEB as it hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. The little existing coverage is routine web coverage, mostly by non-reliable sources. The best source available is this, which says something regarding the product's encyclopedic notability. Borderline A7 speedy, as there is little to no assertion of significance. As this was deleted four times before, I want to see if there is consensus here for salting. Them From Space 16:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article is about a software that has been mentioned in various reliable web sources:

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/02/17/active-collab-announces-basecamp-project-import-tool/?fromcat=all#!sTmSF http://techcrunch.com/2006/07/06/bascamp-faces-competition-in-free-alternative/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/11/13/15-useful-project-management-tools/ http://gigaom.com/2010/09/07/self-hosting-your-project-management-tools/

It is featured in numerous project management specialized websites, just to name a few:

http://www.getapp.com/activecollab-application http://project-management.com/activecollab-software-review/ http://projectmanager.com.au/education/tools/project-management-software-review-activecollab/ http://www.testuff.com/help/activecollab/

It has been mentioned in papers published on universities:

http://books.google.rs/books?id=W4JaHY-jYHoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=activecollab&f=false

More than 10000 companies and institutions use it, including numerous universities: http://unlcms.unl.edu/information-services/new-it/unlprojects-activecollab-0 http://cepa.maxwell.syr.edu/pages/137.html http://collab.uncc.edu/public/index.php/login?re_route=homepage http://its.uiowa.edu/campus-software-program/activecollab-corporate-238

It has many more references than many other PM software tools that are featured on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FogBugz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FusionForge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall.com_(software)

With all this in mind I strongly object the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiwriter (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Wiwriter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that coverage looks pretty routine, with quite a bit coming from press releases. I also don't believe any of those meet our criteria for reliable sources. Them From Space 01:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are mostly secondary, which is in accordance with the rules, don't come from press releases, they are published on reputable and relevant sites such as http://techcrunch.com/ or /thenextweb.com. Sources include .edu and . government sites. Here is an example of the later - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605024/. Here is another reputable source - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5551012 by a researcher from University of Castilla La Mancha, Spain. Further sources include other software companies that integrated their tools with activeCollab such as https://zapier.com/zapbook/activecollab/. It seems to be more than enough and much more that dozens of project management tools already included on Wikipedia. Wiwriter (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing any significant discussion in those sources. Just a couple of sentences in passing won't cut it. Them From Space 17:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With non enterprise software, that is not funded in Silicon Valley you cannot expect massive coverage. This is quite enough for establishing validity of the topic and every sentence in the text has a reliable source. Here is another one I found - http://en.startit.rs/activecollab-3-project-management-saas/Wiwriter (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also included one more resource from AllBusiness.com - http://www.allbusiness.com/management/change-management/3875709-1.html Wiwriter (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Several marginal sources, but mostly presence in lists and other minor coverage. Not seeing quite enough to pass GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete endlessly recycled press releases are still press releases. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NWA World Women's Championship#Title history. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Boucher

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

No notable wrestler. She won a title long time ago (two weeks) and the article is one line. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Although it is irrelevant to say that it is rare that there are female wrestlers out there, but she does not pass WP:WRESTLING. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to the table in NWA World Women's Championship. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NWA World Women's Championship Not individually notable but redirects are cheap.204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICW Junior Heavyweight Championship

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

No notable title. Even the promotion doesn't have an article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the professional wrestling promotion which owns this title is apparently not notable enough for an article here. A title can't be more notable than its promotion. starship.paint "YES !" 10:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable promotion, not a notable championship.LM2000 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PWF Universal Women's Championship

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

No notable title. Even the promotion doesn't have an article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the promotion isn't notable how on earth could this title be notable?LM2000 (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the professional wrestling promotion which owns this title is apparently not notable enough for an article here. A title can't be more notable than its promotion. starship.paint "YES !" 10:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although participation was limited, there seems to be wide (if not unanimous) agreement that the sources found by User:Spinningspark demonstrate notability. Merge or rename discussions can of course continue to occur on the article's talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic gravitational wave interferometric sensor

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

The article is too short and based on an old source. It's unclear whether the subject is notable, since it's nothing more than a proposed method Fedor Babkin (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get 46 hits in Scholar which is astonishing for such a long technical phrase (in quotes). The cited paper may be old (2008), but the method was proposed again in 2011 by a slightly different set of authors [15] and by a completely different set [16]. The literature was reviewed in Physical Review D [17], and in short seems to be an active area of research. It is still current, I can see papers published in 2013 [18][19][20], this one [21] claims to have actually measured something, and from 2014 there is this ArXiv submission and something in Italian that appears to be relevant. Spinning Spark 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this book has a whole chapter on the subject. Spinning Spark 19:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of sources found by Spinningspark. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised it was felt necessary to relist this. Just to add to the sources, there is this document and this slide show from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. Spinning Spark
Consensus means people agreeing on something; 2 against 1 is not a consensus regardless of the strength of the arguments. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been kept; WP:VOTE values strength of argument over strength of numbers. Sadly, closers feel the need to pad such closings with reams of rules, and so most simply do not have the time. Anarchangel (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that if not enough eyes have seen the discussion, then we cannot be confident in the result. For a lightly attended AfD, the benefits of relisting outweigh any harm that may result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After a week of discussion still a one liner article with an obsolete source. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is beside the point as far as the deletion discussion is concerned. If a topic can be shown to be notable we keep the article and wait for it to be improved by someone interested. We only delete notable topics in extreme cases such as copyright violation, blatant advertising, or BLP violation. Even then, we might keep it if there is anything useful left after stripping out the unpermitted material. Spinning Spark 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody is able show the notability in the article itself, that's it. The links you suggest show the notablity of the method of atomic interferometry for gravity waves detection in general, but not of that particular type of sensor, unless it is proven otherwise in the article. Be careful with "this book", it's just a Ph.D. thesis. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not so. Four of the links on scholar [22][23][24][25] have Atomic gravitational wave interferometric sensor in the title of the paper. Many more have substantial discussion of the term in the text body. Are you claiming these are all describing fundamentally different methods? I don't think so. As for the book, Ph.D theses are considered notable here since they have been through review and are considered part of the scholarly corpus. Spinning Spark 13:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why this discussion is already 100 times larger than the article itself? If you see these links as relevant (I don't, because they show that this type of sensor has not yet been built and that competing schemes are more successful to get funds), try to improve the article. Then I will immediately revoke this nomination. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely irrelevant that the technique has not actually been used, that there are better funded techniques, or even if it doesn't work at all. The only thing that matters at RFD is that reliable sources are talking about it. Please don't quote WP:FIXIT at me, it is also highly irrelevant whether or not I am prepared to work on the article. ...and the reason this is a 100 times longer than the article is because you keep disputing with me -:) Spinning Spark 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gravitational-wave detector#Interferometers. Although Spinningspark has done a great job finding sources, this method is still pretty much in the proposal stage. The section on interferometers would provide context and would serve the subject better than a stand-alone article for now. The method could also be mentioned in atom interferometer. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Rochon, Jr.

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

Doesn't indicate notability (or even significance really), doesn't have any references besides his bio on his company's website and external links about CVSL rather than Rochon himself IagoQnsi (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious delete, unref'd BLP. Person is way way below notability standards, zero usable refs. CEO of a company (Richmont Holdings) which does not itself have an article or probably deserve one. If Richmont Holdings gets an article, a sentence or two on this person could be added (if ref'd). CVSL has an article, but 1) he's just board member, and 2) it's described as "a community of multiple... companies, each maintaining its own unique brand, knit together in a publicly traded company as a network of networks" which is a barftastic way to describe a company (they probably have "mind-encounter sessions" instead of "meetings" I suppose) and tends to make my spam-O-meter go off. Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate universes and omake theater in Megatokyo

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

Per the merge discussion that was initiated at this article's talk page, there appears to be some consensus within the discussion to nominate the article for deletion. Taking this to AfD to gain a wider discussion. The rationale for deletion can be seen on the talk page, but essentially, these alternate universes are not a major part of the source material involved, and the article lacks secondary sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third-party surces or any secondary info. clearly not notable or worthy by any means. Lucia Black (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I realize I may induce groans by saying this, as I was the one who first proposed it be merged, but I wonder if these universes are covered by reviews or other secondary coverage we just haven't looked at yet. Tezero (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've perused the sources linked in Reception, and I didn't notice a single mention of the alternate universes. I could see articles on Piro and Largo, but since the reviewers didn't think to mention this feature of the comic, it doesn't satisfy WP:N to keep an entire article on it. Tezero (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe there's an alternate universe where this article is relevant. I would have suggested a speedy deletion. -Novil Ariandis (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lucia and Novil. I don't see how it's notable generally outside of its own universe. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move and reframe to Music of Lubbock, Texas --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbock sound

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

Deprodded. The sources do not mention the term "Lubbock sound" anywhere. The books mentioned in the deprod summary, at first glance, did not seem to mention it either, nor could I find any other relevant hits for the supposed genre. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After I think it over, it's so easy to say that there's (Bo) diddley out there about the "Lubbock sound". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My "deprod summary" was that we should keep the article because the topic was mentioned in "1996 'Prairie Nights to Neon Lights', 2003 'All Music Guide to Country' by Erlewine et al, 2003 'Rock and Roll: Gold Rush' by Maury Dean, 1982 'You're so cold I'm turnin' blue' by Hume." These sources can be seen on the following Google Books links. Binksternet (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Nights to Neon Lights: The Story of Country Music in West Texas, by Joe Carr, Alan Munde, page 184: "In many ways, the mix of country and rock is the basis of the "Lubbock Sound." Stubbs' Barbecue Restaurant on East Broadway in Lubbock was another center of Lubbock music activity. Established in 1968, the restaurant, especially its Sunday jam sessions, served as a focal point for Lubbock musicians... Other local clubs such as Fat Dawg's, Main Street Saloon, and Coldwater provided outlets for the developing talents of Lubbock musicians during the period."
All Music Guide to Country: The Definitive Guide to Country Music, edited by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, pages 917–918: The section titled "The Lubbock Country Scene" has about a page of text describing how Lubbock's sound is far more progressive than the conservative politics of the area would indicate. Charts show who were the influences in the Lubbock sound. One sentence reads, "As some critics quip, the Lubbock sound is too country in orientation to even get played on country radio."
Music in American Life: An Encyclopedia of the Songs, Styles, Stars, and Stories that Shaped our Culture, edited by Jacqueline Edmondson, page 559 about Buddy Holly. The book says that Holly's band the Crickets had a "Tex-Mex" or "Lubbock" sound.
Telling Stories, Writing Songs: An Album of Texas Songwriters, by Kathleen Hudson, page 137. Joe Ely talks about Lubbock's style of music. He says "a lot of the Lubbock sound came not so much from the city but just from the fact that there wasn't a whole lot else to do except get into trouble." He talks about which musicians influenced the style of Lubbock's music.
Rock and Roll: Gold Rush, by Maury Dean, page 135: Dean writes that the Bobby Fuller Five song "I Fought the Law" is "the Lubbock sound at its best."
You're so cold I'm turnin' blue: Martha Hume's guide to the greatest in country music, Martha Hume, pages 156–157: "Joe Ely is from Lubbock, Texas, and is the best current exemplar of the sound of the Joe Ely: the Lubbock sound."

Comment. Those are just scattered mentions. Nothing substantive. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of in-depth sources, and the topic of Holly and his influence is already covered in Buddy Holly. Non-Holly-related material on the Lubbock sound and its relation to Lubbock culture could be included in Lubbock, Texas#People and culture, which already discusses Holly. Most of the material in this article needs to be referenced to show whose opinion it is (just having a list of people allegedly "influenced by the Lubbock sound" is worthless, and it's the same with the list of "popular songs") and the topic of Holly and his influence is already better covered in Buddy Holly. Might redirect either to Lubbock, Texas#People and culture or Buddy Holly. If someone wants to write a good article with proper referencing that isn't purely about Buddy Holly, I might change my opinion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There does not appear to be a Lubbock "sound" so much as a Lubbock "scene". Here are examples which discuss the city's musical heritage, plus this book which "seeks to answer the question, why do so many innovative musicians come from Lubbock?" If someone were to re-purpose the current article into a Music of Lubbock, Texas page (like we have with Music of Athens, Georgia, for example), it would certainly be worth keeping as a notable topic. Gongshow talk 01:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Not really a straight move, but more of a pasting of greatly reworked text and refs, to Music of Lubbock, Texas. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The information is valid, and there's the start of something here. It's a little too focused on the Crickets right now, but there are a LOT of good sources here that could be used to expand the article. Many of these establish the "Lubbock sound" as a distinct, notable style of music on its own. Even if our current article is in sore shape, deletion is not clean up, and source material clearly exists to make this better. --Jayron32 19:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move and reframe as Music of Lubbock, Texas. I find the currently article title deeply unsatisfactory, even though there are a few scattered mentions of the term about, the "Lubbock sound" clearly isn't a major concept defined by experts in the field. However, the city did host a number of important early developments in the rock and roll genre, and a decent article could surely be written to cover all of that. The content in this article would be a good start. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but move as suggested, possibly to Music of Lubbock, Texas. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvetta Kaleynska

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

Not notable Harsh (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass the notability guidelines for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable marketing consultant. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition of Nemetz

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

Page creator had removed the PROD tag. The case is not significant as far as I know, ~~and wikipedia is not repository~~. Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTREPOSITORY has no application to this article because this article is clearly not a repository of links, images or media files. James500 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striked out now. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 08:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Appellate case from regional circuit; no indication that it set any precedent followed by other circuits or otherwise made any significant impact on immigration jurisprudence. TJRC (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'd not heard of the case, but this case has been cited as precedent in the Virginia Law Review and other sources. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How was it cited? For what precedent? A lot of non-notable cases get cited all the time. TJRC (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TJRC's question above appears to be answered in the footnotes to the article at the time I write this, but in addition: This article and this law review article treat the case as their primary topic. Even without access to the full articles, Journal article = reliable, authors = indpendent; topic=article implies signficant coverage, I'm seeing this case meets WP:GNG. I do wonder if it would be better moved to Nemetz v INS or the like. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added: [26] also provides signficant, secondary, reliable coverage. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Joe Decker's finds. I've stricken my prior Delete !vote. TJRC (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Darshan

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

Fails WP:ENT Harsh (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 16:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Shiv Darshan is a notable actor from film Karle Pyaar Karle and Suneel Darshan his father is also a renowed Hindi filmmaker. TekkenLeiWulong (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing the article has several sources cited respectively TekkenLeiWulong (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR at the moment with only a single film credit. If they get significant roles in a couple of additional films, this should be revisited. Otherwise, WP:TOOSOON. Ravensfire (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Nobility is not inherited. (well in Wikipedia terms that is) Wgolf (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Card Café

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Two local articles and two press releases comprise the refs currently. Also the page creator is an SPA using the initials of the company (pcc) -- so it may be a COI issue, but ultimately I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to come to. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google turns up nothing else except coupon sites and direct publicity. The two sources in the article are local coverage only - nothing from regional or national press to suggest notability. Moswento ^talky 13:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the article's current references satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, and I can not find sufficient coverage to get this over the hump. Gongshow talk 01:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pugliese

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

No indication of notability, appears to be a WP:ADVERT. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a few mentions on Google Books but no substantial coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Candle.. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability and reads like an advertisement. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aroc

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

Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO. His group Weekend Excursion is mildly notable per criterion 10 (although that being the only claim is usually not enough to warrant an article), but members of bands are "not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAroc has had his voice on national television on MTV's the Real World, and Dawson's Creek. Notable per WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6. Not only this, as related in the article he is and has been active in his local community providing philonthropic charitable donations and activities: transportation services and proper channeling for needy individuals and families to name a few. Furthermore, he is still with the group from time to time performing along side Jeff Foxworth of the "Ontic" and Sam Fisher of Lucas Gambit Records, an notable independent label that has sponsored the final CD he has appeared on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royaloats (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Criteria 6 says "musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". While Weekend Excursion might qualify as notable due to the Dawson's Creek and Real World appearances, he has not been a prominent member of a second independent notable ensemble (appearing from time to time is not prominent). The charity work you mentioned doesn't establish notability without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't even find a reliable source that states that he was in "Weekend Excursion" when the songs that aired on TV were recorded, nor can I find any reliable sources that state that he still performs with the group. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ https://www.facebook.com/weekendexcursion?v=info GIVES A TIMELINE OF EVENTS IN REGARDS TO THE BANDS MUSICIANS, HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT HE WAS THE SECOND FRONT MAN FOR THE BAND WEEKEND EXCURSION.^[1]

Comment: Preceding unsigned comment added by Royaloats (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 April 2014. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ I ALSO ASK THAT YOU KEEP THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE THIS GENTLEMAN IS ALSO INVOLVED WITH THE JIMMY V FOUNDATION PERFORMING ANNUALLY WITH THE GROUP TO SUPPORT CANCER RESEARCH AT THE LINCOLN THEATRE RALEIGH, NC^[2]^[3]^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royaloats (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to contribute to Wikipedia. While I have no doubt that this person is an important member of the community and does a lot to support cancer research, please note that the test for inclusion within Wikipedia is notability, not fame, importance, or popularity. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ A COLLECTION OF ALL HIS SONGS REMAIN ON SALE YEAR ROUND TO SUPPORT THE JIMMY V FOUNDATION AND CANCER RESEARCH, A PORTION OF THESE CDS SELLS GO DIRECTLY TO CANCER REASEARCH.^[5]

Comment: Preceding unsigned comment added by Royaloats (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 April 2014. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : WOW!

Preceding unsigned comment added by Royaloats (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 April 2014‎. I removed the copy and paste of Edwin McCain. Please don't copy and paste entire wikipedia articles into an AfD discussion. Also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Seems more promo than anything, As above fails WP:MUSICBIO. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've struck the multiple keep mentions, as those are all by the same editor, User:Royaloats. Royal, AfDs aren't decided on a vote - it's decided on the weight of the arguments and making multiple keep "votes" (I use that in parentheses because it's just an easier way to term them) will not add to the one you've already made. You can make more comments, but please do not open each argument with "keep". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ahecht. Spinning Spark 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there does seem to be some substantial coverage for the band Weekend Excursion. I'm not seeing any for this individual. So I would say Delete unless someone wants to completely rework the article into something about the band and note this individual there. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Veria F.C. season

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

Violates WP:NOTSTATS. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." No attempt at sourced prose. Article only encourages similar unsourced repositories. C 679 04:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page under the same rationale:

C 679 04:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - both would be notable is overhauled, but in their current state they are not and nobody seems willing/able to solve the many problems. Better to delete and re-start from scratch in due course. Giant Snowman 08:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to fix the problems over here, could you mention them to me and I'd be glad to try fixing them Panos 12:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 14:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a typical season article for a top-tier professional club. It might need a bit of prose, but I'm not really seeing a lot of difference when looking at current seasons of other teams such as 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season and 2013–14 Swansea City A.F.C. season. There is recent work on the article and User:PanosBonJov has expressed a willingness to fix article. Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is a record for a club playing in a top professional league as required by WP:NSEASONS, see no reason why sourced prose cannot be added. Agree with Nfitz that the state of the article is nearly identical to that of many others. Needs improving, but no reason whatsoever given current consensus to consider this as a non-notable subject. Fenix down (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what "current consensus" you refer to, but I do know that WP:NSEASONS asserts that "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory" which clearly indicates that the articles in their current state are specifically outside of the scope of the guideline. GNG isn't claimed to be met either, so there don't appear to be any remaining arguments to keep the article. C 679 20:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was a bit of a mess to begin with, but AfD is not for cleanup. These year articles are part of a bigger scheme too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly needs the addition of 'well-sourced prose' but articles on notable subjects should be not be deleted for lack of sources within the page only if such sources can be shown not to exist. The way forward is to tag the page for improvement and encourage expansion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was selectively merge. Consensus is that this article should not be maintained and should be selectively merged and redirected as discussed below. Sandstein 08:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian serfdom

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

Whilst I believe the creator had all good intentions, this article is fundamentally incorrect, as there has not been serfdom in Norway for nearly 1,000 years. Furthermore, the content is partly inaccurate and partly original research. ('can be a way of defining' etc.) No More 18 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. The article admits "they were not actually in serfdom by European standards". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ primarily as fundamentally incorrect information. I happen to possess literature on the topic, I remembered today, and I might write a new article. However, I do not have the sufficient amount of time nowadays. I believe the deletion proposal should be considered independently of this. No More 18 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote by nominator. Your deletion nomination is your vote. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename! The article itself is not that bad and can be improved. The title is and always has been cringe-worthy. Change it to, for example, Norwegian lower class (or peasant/s) farmers from c. 1750 or tenant farmers. The article Norway is probably too long to add this content to, and this bit of history is important. --Hordaland (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging any important bits into History of Norway#Denmark–Norway (where our non-serfs are called smallholders, but "smallholders" apparently own(ed) their own land!) and/or into Tenant farmer#Scandinavia. --Hordaland (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting after merging is often a bad idea for multi-author articles, because normally, the attribution of text to authors is done via the edit history, which deletion breaks. See this essay. 109.77.169.184 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who types "Norwegian serfdom" in the search box may be looking for the material we cover under one of Hordaland's suggested targets, but "serfdom" often relates to the late Dark Ages or early Mediaeval periods, so they're probably looking for material we cover under thrall. I suspect that the right outcome here is quite complex. We'd want a selective merge as Hordaland suggests, but instead of deleting the title, we'd want to replace it with a disambiguation page listing the possible alternatives. Maintain the history under the disambiguation page to deal with the attribution issues that 109.77.169.184 describes.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages do not exist to present alternatives, only 100% genuine Norwegian serfs. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thrall. There are two ways of translating the English word 'serfdom' into Norwegian: livegenskap (compare with German Leibeigenschaft) is used about serfdom in non-Nordic countries, while trelldom refers to Viking-age and Medieval serfdom/slavery in Nordic countries. Thus, a redirect to Thrall might not be incorrect. On the other hand, Norway, Sweden etc. had independent jurisdictions etc. regarding thralldom. This demands either separate articles or separate sections of an article. I believe the name of a kept or re-created article should be Serfdom in Norway (not Norwegian serfdom), Thralls in Norway or similar. No More 18 (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttps://www.facebook.com/weekendexcursion?v=info

[2] ttp://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/weekend-excursion-mark-kano-band/Event?oid=2726399

[3] ttp://www.godowntownraleigh.com/event/weekend-excursion

[4] ttps://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.38474673430.46765.38460778430&type=3

[5] ttp://mbasic.facebook.com/weekendexcursion?v=timeline&timecutoff=1385477802&page=2&sectionLoadingID=m_timeline_loading_div_1325404799_1293868800_8_2&timeend=1325404799&timestart=1293868800&tm=AQBUxhMdetoXdQoh

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]