Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:14, 2 October 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 October	3 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. as suggested redirect target has also been deleted. JohnCD (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Braund

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

I'm nominating this for AfD along with the company that he works for, InterQuest Group. Neither have any notability to where they'd warrant an article. I'd originally redirected this to the company's article, but it was undone by the original editor. They did make some additional edits to add links, but none of them ultimately give notability. The first link is the company's website (making it WP:PRIMARY), the second one (Bloomberg) is just a typical database type entry. The third (Staffing Industry Analyst) isn't really what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source, as we can't verify anything about the magazine or website. It also doesn't help that this reads somewhat like it was taken from a press release. The Recruiter one is so brief that it would be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source at best. The Recruitment International has somewhat of the same issues as SIA in that it's hard to see it as a verifiable RS per WP's rules. Recruitment Buzz is also dodgy as a source, since it kind of reads a bit like a puff piece at best. None of the sources can show notability. I'd just redirect this to the main article for the company again, but I think it'd be un-redirected and I want to run this through an official AfD. Forgive me, but this feels like it's a bit of promotional puffery for anything InterQuest Group related that's going on here in general. There's just nothing to show that he's ultimately notable outside of his relation to the company, a company that doesn't really seem to have notability itself. He's successful, but success doesn't equate to notability. It makes it more likely, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the related AfD for the company itself here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterQuest Group Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to InterQuest Group, which is also subject to an AFD, but where I am voting to keep, largely due to the level of its turnover. I do not think he is notable apart from his role with that company. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the individual is less notable than the firm, but I don;t think the firm is notable enough for a redirect to be warranted, and I do not consider it good policy to make a redirect for every CEO of a borderline notable company. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam B Smith

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

Promotional piece created and written by his management. Subject itself fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability rules for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete . Written by his management team, Violet Hill Music & Brand management, a firm that exclusively represents music producers, songwriters and mix engineers. Fails WP:Musicbio. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Creator blocked for promo and vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InterQuest Group

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

I'm bringing this to AfD after a SPA removed the speedy template on the article. I'd discovered this after finding an article on one of the employees that had been nominated for a speedy. (I redirected it to this article.) In a nutshell, this just isn't a notable company. The article is vaguely promotional in tone and while it barely asserts some notability, I can't find any coverage in reliable sources that would show that this is ultimately notable. An editor requested time to find sources, but I'm bringing this here because ultimately this has been around since 2008 and reliable sources have yet to be found since that time. I couldn't find any and I pretty much doubt that they actually exist. There are plenty of primary sources such as press releases and the like, as well as one or two brief mentions, but nothing that would show that this ultimately passes WP:CORP. They seem to be successful, but that's no guarantee of notability. It might make it more likely, but success doesn't automatically mean notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The employee's article was un-redirected, so I'm nominating that one as well in a separate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Braund. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are not reliable and requires additional primary, secondary and teritary sources. Most of the sources are to there website. The article tone sounds like a company portfolio and many not meet WP:ORG. ///EuroCarGT 01:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find passing press mentions relating to their share price movements on the AIM, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A firm going about its business but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- (1) it is a listed company (even if only on AIM) (2) It has a turnover of £112M (accoring to annual report on company website. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS isn't enough to keep an article, nor is the success of a company anything that could give automatic notability. There are a great many highly successful companies out there that never gain substantial coverage per WP:CORP. You have to show notability by way of sources that are not only independent of the company, but are also reliable and go into depth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keeping on the basis of financial success can be justified, but the level would need discussion, and will differ in different industries. I don't think this is high enough for ti to be automatic. I accept being listed on one of the leading exchanges such as NYSE as evidence of notability, but AIM is not one of them. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Sams, Jr.

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

Aside from a mention in Pearson's book, cannot establish WP:N [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole book (by a reporter and a professor) and a raft of newspaper and magazine articles on this murder. It was perhaps the highest-profile trial in the country while it was happening, and even spawned conspiracy theories involving Hillary Clinton's participation. I don't have the time or interest to write it up myself. I suggest that you take it up and do something productive instead of stalking me.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was an important trial (in Black Panther history) and Sams was one of three murderers along with Warren Kimbro and Lonnie McLucas who also have articles. Sourcing no problem see Google Books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (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) 14:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As observed above, Sams was one of the major figures in one of the most nationally (and internationally) prominent trials in the early 1970s. Somewhere along the line the original reference got deleted, and it never was cited specifically for inline citations as it should have been, but the fix is to fix the inline citations, not delete the article. Gzuckier (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major figure in internatinal prominent trial.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, notable individual. Giant Snowman 12:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eve de Leon Allen

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

Unsourced BLP, fails WP:NACTOR. Green Cardamom (t c) had nominated the page for A7, and I concurred and deleted the page, but the article creator contacted me to dispute my application of A7. I am bringing the issue here in lieu of sending it through DRV. —Darkwind (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. I agree that A7 speedy deletion wasn't the best choice here: recurring roles in two notable TV series are enough to assert "significance or importance", especially since her Nuzzle and Scratch role is apparently a starring one. However, I've so far found very little to meet the tougher notability standard that we're using here at AfD: best I can find are brief namechecks at BleedingCool.com [1] and Digital Journal [2] mentioning her appearance on Doctor Who. That's not enough. Unless more turns up I'll have to !vote delete. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She did have a starring role in one significant TV series, and a significant role in a very well known series. PatGallacher (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable .. television shows". Is 4 guest appearances on Dr. Who a "significant role"? There's a problem of lack of sourcing to pass WP:GNG - we know she exists and was in two television shows. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is a marginal case. But child actors fall into a special and difficult category because we do not know whether they will make a successful transition into adult roles even if they choose to try, and many do not. That is not to say that we should never have articles on the Hayley Mills of this world but there is a consensus that having a BLP in Wikipedia is for most people a burden, and especially for minors and those who choose to have moved on to other things in life. If she carries on being successful in acting there is no prejudice against a new article, but at present there is insufficient to indicate that she will be remembered as an actress other than by friends and family. --AJHingston (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOO SOON. May be notable one day. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We usually have deleted barely notable child actors, out of an abundance of caution. FWIW, she does not appear to be related to my godmother. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As there would appear to be sources to indicate notability, the consensus would appear to be veering towards keep, even by those who had left a delete comment. If no improvement is made in a reasonable time, then a second AfD could be opened for this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latrelle

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

Singer/songwriter. The article is one big fluff piece without any reliable sources (and a second one existed at MzMunchie until just now). The text can be found all over the web, but I now assume it was written (and posted here?) by her representation.

I can find no reliable sources covering her at all
She seems to have released a single EP (itunes). Per the WP:NMUSIC guideline this is not considered sufficient indication of notability for a standalone article.

Amalthea 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what Candleabracadabra said, the article does not meet most of the criteria listed on WP:MUSBIO specially reliable sources. ///EuroCarGT 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No media coverage as Latrelle or MzMunchie. Can't find any reviews of her EP. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this article from VIBE, an allmusic bio, and Popular Music: An Annotated Index of American Popular Songs appears to credit her with co-writing a Grammy-nominated song, so I'm a bit mystified with all the comments stating that no coverage at all could be found. --Michig (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also found this from Edge Boston and here's a Billboard Dance Club Songs chart showing her at number 50. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per my comments above. The arguments that coverage doesn't exist have been shown to be groundless. --Michig (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, it seems my Google-fu was weak, sorry about that.
The article would need to be pretty much stubbed to get it verifiable, but a page in Vibe (magazine) is generally sufficient for me. Is a song on Dance Club Songs (Hot Dance Club Songs?) an acceptable "country's national music chart" as per WP:MUSICBIO criterion 2? Amalthea 15:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That chart would not be enough for me on its own, but others may disagree. It at least shows some level of success, albeit minor. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (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) 14:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for more discussion of Michig's sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could User:Amalthea, User:Candleabracadabra, User:EuroCarGT, and User:Colapeninsula comment on whether the links provided above convince them of the subject's notability and strike or reaffirm their !votes? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for someone to do something with the article. :) Yes, the sources identified above establish notability. No, I haven't changed my vote because the current article isn't written from those (or any) verifiable sources and should probably be deleted if it's not fixed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links above shows notability as she wrote songs for Destiny Child as what Candleabracadabra said above, I wouldn't change my !vote for now due to the current state of the article. ///EuroCarGT 15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. I'm happy to improve the article if it's kept, but don't want to spend an hour of my time on something that's going to get deleted. If you feel that notability is there and that the article can be brought up to scratch, the right thing to do is keep it. --Michig (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article isn't cleaned up it should be deleted. It can always be moved to userspace if someone wants to work on it later. If it's deleted it can also be started fresh from the sources noted above. Promotional content that isn't verifiable isn't appropriate to include in Wikipedia and that's what the article consists of at present. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Air Services (Romania)

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

A flying school with no sign of notability or any different to the hundreds of other such organisations. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because WP:CORP is not met. This company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The references used for the Wikipedia article provide no in-depth analysis of this flying school, but only mention it in passing.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Fails WP:CORP Flat Out let's discuss it 06:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete, Solaryx (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)I did some extensive research about this company, they are not only a flight school accredited by the local authorities, but more than that, they are a air transportation company they own and operate an airport (code LRTZ) and they do own and operate airplanes as assets to serve the flight school as well as banner towing, crop dusting, recreational tours and other similar non-scheduled flights. Sure, as a flight school they may not be notable at international level, but my personal opinion is that they deserve a page, even if it's just for the fact that they own and operate a real airport.Solaryx (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what kind of a company, WP:CORP must be passed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saltine aka The Mad Rapper

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

Recording artist. After investigation, I believe the topic fails WP:N/WP:MUSIC since I can't find reliable sources covering the topic as required. Unless anyone else can, the article should be deleted. The most notable claims from the article are:

He enjoyed "global airplay". I find no sources to support that, but wouldn't really know where to look
One of his songs was used in a notable TV series, supported by a tv.com link
"Garned high praise from widely respected Billboard magazine" -- the best I can find about this is a digital image of that praise, but neither the song nor the artist seem to be listed at billboard.com at the moment.

Amalthea 19:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The review was in a 1997 issue of Billboard seen here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that matches the image. Amalthea 15:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 3 October 2013 (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) 14:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator as notability has now been established. (Non-admin closure). — sparklism ^hey! 07:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Gang of 1974

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

Now this does pass WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2 - hence why we're here and not at CSD - but it is appallingly written and requires comprehensive cleanup. As a band whose only claim to notability is a song that charted between #76 and #100, the Official Chart Archive does not log it in its public archive and thus we can't source it. Laun chba ller 19:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources on the subject and works include [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Gong show 19:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow! Convert those into inline citations and add a bit of encyclopedic content to the article and I will be happy to withdraw my nomination.--Laun chba ller 19:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sources to the article. Gong show 23:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - nomination withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 06:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sebring

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

Obscure (always losing) perennial candidate; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's received substantial coverage over the years for his campaigns. here for example. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG which trumps WP:POLITICIAN. Since this is such a major office, I'm sure that more reliable sources exist. Royal broil 12:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pretty clearly established over the years that somebody like this who is not notable for themselves, and is only covered as a result of their status as a candidate, fails the requisite substantial test: coverage of them for themselves, as opposed to token "this is the other guy on the ballot" reportage, which is about the election, not the candidate. This even applies to major-party nominees for the Senate and governorships, much less the House. See the talk page history of WP:POLITICIAN in particular. I live in the district this guy keeps running for; he's totally obscure, and you only see his name every two years when he runs again, or when you drive by his house, where he's erected a permanent sign. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Politicians are notable for their political campaigns, not their ancillary activities. Anyone notable enough to by a major party candidate in a two-party system for a national office such as a seat in the US House of Representatives) should be consider suitable for an article. First, because even getting this far is getting far above the routine (the routine for politician being a post in a state legislature--and we accept that as notable) Second, because in effect we otherwise give an advantage to the incumbent, which is not NPOV coverage. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply - DGG, that's contradictory to long-standing consensus in discussions of WP:POLITICIAN in particular: people like Sebring are not notable in any way save that their names appear on a ballot, and they get token coverage no matter how quixotic their campaign. I've lived in this Congressional district for over 30 years, and I can assure you: if he wasn't willing to get his name on a ballot to get whipped (repeatedly) by Democrats in a heavily Democratic district, he would not make the paper until his obituary. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC) (unsuccessful major party nominee for the Tennessee General Assembly, and clearly not notable)[reply]

But the Tennessee General Assembly is not the US House.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, John; but the consensus at WP:POLITICIAN has been consistent for any office below POTUS and VP of the U.S. (or non-U.S. equivalents). Senator, Congress, Governor, etc.: if they wouldn't pass WP:BIO via non-election-related coverage, they don't get a free pass just because their names appear on a ballot. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrograde motion (disambiguation)

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

Having a disambiguation page here incorrectly suggests that there is an ambiguity here, where there is none. "Apparent" retrograde motion is merely the appearance of retrograde motion, and is only a partial title match; it is no more ambiguous to retrograde motion than Penrose stairs is to stairs - something that merely gives the illusion of being something else, and not an unrelated topic that just happens to share the same name. Also, nothing links here, and anyone searching for Retrograde motion will correctly be taken to Retrograde and prograde motion, which already has a hatnote to Apparent retrograde motion. bd2412 T 18:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The partial title match problem is debatable, but as there are only two entries and the two articles in question already have hatnotes to each other, I think this can be deleted per WP:2DABS (or maybe speedied per WP:CSD#G6 ?) as an unnecessary dab page. --Mark viking (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until there's a band called Retrograde Motion (oh, there is such a band[11] but it's not thought notable), this page is unhelpful. Thincat (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded, redundant, orphan page. I tagged it with G6 but someone argued that the entries are ambiguous. — Reatlas (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not arguing that the entries are ambiguous -- I was only pointing out that CSD seemed inappropriate as there already was a full AfD underway and that discussion can determine whether the entries are ambiguous and whether the page is needed. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh...so you don't think it's ambiguous but still contested the G6 on behalf of someone who hypothetically might? It doesn't seem like something particularly controversial to me. — Reatlas (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems a speedy delete would have been uncontroversial. Not everyone has endless time to discuss things. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Well covered with hat note. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Point to consider: This item is an example on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. So the guy who deletes it will need to fix that page. GroveGuy (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting in that this is provided as an example of a page that can probably be deleted, but for reasons other than my nomination rationale, which is lack of actual ambiguity. bd2412 T 00:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive fuel brands

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

Pretty much an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Any company can sell petrol, and brand it as their own, e.g. supermarkets like Asda, Tesco and I guess QuikTrip and Walmart. Martin451 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. I don't understand why the solution here isn't simply to limit the list to bluelinks or otherwise demonstrably notable brands, rather than deleting what strikes me, at first blush, to be a reasonable subject for a list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formally !voting "keep" in light of my initial comments and the comments by others. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adequately covered by the Category:Automotive fuel brands. Many items on this list are actually store brands (which could lead to lists of every product with a house brand), many are red links, and a few link to disambiguation pages. It is poorly compiled incomplete original research. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of a category does not contraindicate the existence of a list. This is not an indiscriminate list at all; remember that redlinks can be good in a list; as for links to dab pages, that's not a rationale for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 3 October 2013 (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) 14:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems a perfectly sound concept for a list and it's certainly not indiscriminate. Lists do a different job from categories - information can be added and red links fulfil a useful purpose - see the essay Wikipedia:Categories versus lists. The black links need sorting but that is an editing matter. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are obviously notable automotive fuel brands, and determining the particular inclusion criteria for a list is a matter for normal editing. It should also be obvious that the list's inclusion criteria could simply match that of Category:Automotive fuel brands (and note that none of the four store brands mentioned by the nominator are included in that category), so it is nonsensical to claim that a list is necessarily indiscriminate but the corresponding category is not. And as noted above, we do not delete a list just because there is a category, per WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some drivers, most notably those in Formula One (example one, example two) bang on about Shell fuel to the exclusion of all others like a broken record, so compiling a list of what gets sold where to whom is a worthwhile topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Johnson (wide receiver)

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

No indication that this individual meets WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to land on Keep for now because I'm finding a very large number of articles in Google for +"Jerry Johnson" +UCLA -- however it is a common name and I don't have time at the moment to run through the articles to verify that they are indeed the same person. If so, I think we might be looking at enough to pass WP:GNG based on press generated from his activities as a college player. I reserve the right to change my mind after further review of the articles found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Fourteen

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

Previously bundled in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume Fifteen in 2006 (no consensus to delete), which were all renominated and deleted in September 2012. It appears this one was just missed in the renom as it shares the same notability concerns. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 3 October 2013 (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) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For whatever reason, the original mass delete didn't mention this article -- but the same reasons still apply.--Larry (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Deen-Conteh

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

Previously deleted by CSD, PROD, and AFD - nothing has changed, still remains non-notable, still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I suggest this is deleted and SALTed. Giant Snowman 16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, but do not agree with salting. He is at a club in an FPL, so seems more a case of WP:TOOSOON than a player who could never probably have a WP article particularly given his age. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: - SALTing will simply stop it getting re-created for the 5th/6th time. If he ever becomes notable then we can restore the history very easily. Giant Snowman 09:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. JMHamo (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trakia blackout of 2013

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

Not notable event. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William 15:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 15:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions....William 15:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was entered with a purpose to record it as an event and includes a reference from the only accountable source, explanation of the distribution utility. Anyway, should be deleted if not applies to Wiki rules. And sorry if I wrote this somewhere wrong, I don't know all the exact discussion rules and ways for the topic. ...FRHD 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this topic and I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS applies. None of the points listed on that page seem to apply to the article, so how can it be used as a deletion reason. How is an event that affected millions of people for two hours not notable? CodeCat (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:EVENT. This is just passing local news that is not notable as an encyclopaedia entry. All that happened was that a device failed in a substation. Power failures occur all the time; they are trivialities outside their own locality. There have been power failures in my neighbourhood that did not even make the news. — O'Dea (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A blackout which affects at least 1.5 million people is notable. Maybe it needs more references. But it has nothing to do with deleting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfall affects many more people every day than a power cut, but we have an article about the rotation of the earth; we do not devote articles to describing each nightfall. An encyclopaedia is not an anthology of brief electrical incidents with local effects. There was nothing unique about this power loss: it was brief and it did not alter the course of history. It is a triviality. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. — O'Dea (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I quite agree with O'Dea.This is an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper. But you can see many articles about blackout events in WP. (2003 Italy blackout, 2003 London blackout, Northeast blackout of 1965 etc.) (In fact many others about other evil events such as eartquakes, floods and fires ) Deleting only this one without deleting the others is not fair. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that there are other blackout articles is an example of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (please read), meaning it is an invalid argument. Indeed, 2003 London blackout should also be deleted.

Northeast blackout of 1965 is notable because it was an international blackout affecting 30 million people. It was sensational and unprecedented at the time; it astonished people so much that it featured afterwards in works of popular culture. 2003 Italy blackout is another international incident that affected 56 million people. An entire nation, Italy, lost power for 13 hours, the most serious blackout there for 70 years.

Please do not create distractions with "earthquakes, floods and fires". We are talking about a temporary loss of electricity, not natural disasters. The blackout in Trakya was a small regional loss of power that affected only 1.5 million people for only two hours. Such blackouts occur frequently throughout the world and are therefore a normal feature of life, and do not warrant encyclopaedia articles about them. They rarely ever make news outside the affected region or nation. In Costa Rica alone, nationwide blackouts are a constant feature of life. Here are news reports of just a few of them: in 1997, 2001, 2007, and 2012. None of these warrant encyclopaedic study.

The question of "fairness" does not arise in a discussion such as this. It is a red herring. Wikipedia does not exist to promote or undermine justice. Trakia will not experience painful jealousy just because the major Italian blackout has a Wikipedia article. — O'Dea (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2013 (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) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable: transient event affecting relatively small region. Has not generated sufficient comment in reliable sources.--Larry (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the List of major power outages which includes "notable" power interruptions, with the relevant criterion being that it affected more than 1,000,000 person-hours, in this case 1.5 million people for over 2 hours or 3 million "person hours." If someone refers to other articles about similar events which survived AFDs, then it should not be dismissed out of hand as an "other stuff exists" argument since it might be a way to point to the consensus as to what level of disruption makes something notable enough for an article or for inclusion in a list such as the one I found. For a major outage which survived AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Southern California power outage. The list of major outages itself survived multiple AFDs. For an example of one which was smaller like this one and got merged to the list, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Portugal Blackout of 2000. Comparison of a blackout to it getting dark at night is not sensible, since twilight does not strand people in elevators or shut off traffic signals, water and sewage handling and medical equipment. It does not make sense to argue for deletion on the basis of some simple equipment failure or human error in setting a protective relay being the root cause. We look at effects, and their coverage, rather than causes in determining notability. Edison (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to merge to List of major power outages is redundant; the power failure has been documented there since September 25th, so deletion remains the preferred choice. — O'Dea (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QA/QC

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

Non-sensical disambiguation ViperSnake151 Talk 14:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Functionally, this is no different from a disambiguation page titled Paris/Berlin or Pizza/Hamburger, listing, respectively, Paris and Berlin or Pizza and Hamburger. bd2412 T 18:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those examples are poor. Better examples would be AC/DC, AD/BC, RA/Dec... Warden (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you click on the book and scholar search links above, you will see that this abbreviation gets a reasonable amount of usage in sources such as Strategies for the development of reliable QA/QC methods when working with mass spectrometry-based chemosensory systems. It should therefore remain as a blue link to assist navigation and, as there are two equally valid targets, the current approach seems fine. Note that it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Warden (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in part based on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This article is only grouped as a disambiguation for lack of a better classification. It behaves like a disambiguation article, in that it points the user to Wikipedia articles. Searching "QA/QC" yields a few million search results, where this page is the top search item, so it would be a loss to remove this article. +mt 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is something of a term of art. It would be nice if one or both articles Quality assurance/Quality control could describe the combined/contrasted functions with the initialism. It might be worth adding Industrial forensics#Quality assessment and quality control (QA/QC). Also take a look at internal search results to see how frequently the combined initialism is used in articles. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at first glance silly and a dictdef rather than dab page, but is a common term so useful and we have a wiktionary link too. TWODABs no primary topic. A simple 50:50 split. None of the examples above are similar, and neither is AM/PM. Agree with Bkonrad third may be useful. Widefox; talk 20:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful dab, nonsense nom with so many g-hits showing its common usage. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: If it was an abbreviation for a topic covered in Wikipedia it would be a redirect, with no problem; it happens to be an abbreviation for a pair of topics (and heavily used, as ghits show), so this article is a sort of forked redirect, to point readers to the two articles on topics to which it refers. Useful. Nothing to gain in deleting it. WP:IAR if necessary. PamD 16:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ECW/FMW December PPV

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

Unremarkable pay-per-view events. No citations whatsoever. Notability has not been established, and fails WP:GNG. — Richard BB 14:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The same user that created this article has a history of creating articles for non-notable events. This also easily fails the GNG by a mile.LM2000 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bruce (physicist)

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally. jps (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #3, Fellow of IEE and IoP. The obit is broken, only the first page is visible (site is broken). A work around go to the "Other Article Option", bottom of page says "Print Pages" and choose pages 75 through 75, then 76 through 76 etc.. -- Green Cardamom (talk)
Keep. Although GS h-index of 10 is lowish, the cites make it clear that he was regarded as a world authority on electrical discharges. Multinamed nominator [12]needs to produce better arguments than "fails generally". Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The ad hominem isn't necessary, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in pointing out the inadequacy of a nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The ad hominem part was in pointing out the nominator's topic ban from fringe science topics. But that may be relevant, too, as there seems to be a close connection between Bruce and the electric universe fringe theory. In fact, given the nominator's past work in deleting material here on the same theory, it seems likely that the connection is not coincidental and that the nominator would be in violation of his topic ban (if it hadn't been lifted). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Fellow of the Institute of Physics and the Institute of Electrical Engineers (as the article clearly states) means a clear pass of WP:PROF #3. This is an incomprehensible nomination. -- 101.119.15.146 (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As already said above, obviously meets WP:PROF. The relatively low citation counts are to be expected for a researcher who worked in the 40s and 50s (many contemporary citations will not be in our databases and works that old get cited only rarely nowadays). --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this is a perfectly good article, on a subject who's deceased (so no WP:BLP) and has had at least one obituary in the academic press. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two society fellowships and one published obit should be enough. I rewrote the article to avoid both some copyvio issues and an undue emphasis on his fringe research (which is to be sure an important part of his life, but not why he is notable). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am also impressed by the award of D.Sc. This is higher than Ph.D.: such doctorates are normally only awarded towards the end of a distinguished career. 100 academic papers is also a lot. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing wrong with the article. As usual, this is just a case of ScienceApologist trying to get an article deleted because he sees it linked with pseudoscience and Velikovskyism. Wanting to purge wikipedia of topics you don't like is not a valid criterea for article deletion. --feline1 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Feels like JPS / ScienceApologist seems to be recently nominating various AfD (Pensée: Velikovsky Reconsidered, SIS, NPA, CER Bruce, etc.) related to a prior area of topic ban in something of a guilt-by-association crusade, going after various articles related to persons, organizations or topics deemed supportive of or tangentially related to subject(s) he personally considers "fringe". Feels like a distinct conflict of interest WRT these nominations, given user(s)'s prior antagonism for the subject(s)/person(s) and years of lobbying against them on WP. Anyway, the recent spate of AfD's seem suggestive of a continuing pattern. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - COI statement: I have been interested in the subject of plasma cosmology / electric universe. If that disqualifies my vote, so be it. That said, I don't see anything wrong with the article in question, as written. Seems reasonably NPOV, no undue emphasis in WP article on topics perceived as "fringe." Did publish quite a few articles, many {most?} in respectable peer-reviewed journals (vis a vis, IEEE journals, Nature, etc.). Seems to have been reasonably well-regarded by peers/contemporaries. Notable? I guess that would depend on who you ask and in what context. I certainly find some of his longer treatises noteworthy. Others may disagree (either with that assessment or with the notability of the topic of his research in general). But, I guess the question might be was it noteworthy research at that time? I think it was, as it explored some pretty fundamental questions in astronomy/cosmology (whether or not his final assessments were or weren't borne out by further scrutiny). Pity more attention wasn't paid (but, that's just my personal opinion). Mgmirkin (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF as fellow of prestigious societies, etc.--Boson (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close - duplicate nomination. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 15:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goh YiLing

AfDs for this article:

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

* Comment: - withdraw nomination, duplicated nomination as template was removed from article by creating author Flat Out let's discuss it 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not notable, fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Flat Out let's discuss it 12:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College of Biblical Studies

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. Article written by the organization themselves by a shared account (since blocked). No references other than their own website. Just another religious school. Went to AfD previously: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of Biblical Studies . Result was Delete. Alexf^(talk) 11:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom. I do not see reliable links aside from their own website that show anything worthy of inclusion. It is a commercial venture, one of many thousand others in the same business. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact an accredited four-year college, thus passing WP:NSCHOOL, and is nonprofit rather than "a commercial venture." -- 101.119.15.110 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is usual with degree-awarding institutions. The previous AfD was seven years ago, when we possibly hadn't established this as a general rule. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimate and accredited degree-awarding institution. There seems to be a failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 101.119.15.110 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article creator has been blocked indefinitely by the nom for promotion. However, that doesn't mean this isn't a suitable article; legitimate degree-awarding institutions should have articles, per WP:NSCHOOL. -- 101.119.15.110 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. It does not mean the same for the article. The OP was promoting. The article was not written in an overly promotional way (unlike the previous version), so it was not set for CSD G11. As I am not convinced of its notability here we are after a short PROD period. That is how the process works. Now lets see the consensus. As for WP:NSCHOOL all it is, is a reminder that all schools must satisfy the notability guidelines. The guideline in a nutshell amounts to this: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. I did not see them, so that is why we are here. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not see the independent sources, but they existed, and are in the article now. The college also appears in several other handbooks listing accredited colleges and universities. And standard practice is that "most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I must say, I'm astonished at this nomination. -- 101.119.14.4 (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. So the system works. That is what AfDs are for. Thanks for your contribution. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We treat all high schools as notable. I thus fail to see how a theological college with 1200 students could fail to be notable. If this were a department of a local church offering evening classes to church memebrs and others, I would take the opposite view. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Calitz

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources, not a single Google News hit. The given references are either broken or they don't mention Calitz. The Wayback Machine indicates they weren't reliable to begin with. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and strongly consider a block for this user. He is not here to collaborate - he has no interest in learning how Wikipedia works or even the most basic rules we have. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence for that? All I can see is a contributor who hasn't yet learnt all the ins and outs of notability guidelines and deletion procedures, but nothing to suggest lack of interest in learning. Maybe it's you who have lack of interest in learning our basic rule on how to behave towards inexperienced contributors. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mortad (band)

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

Attempts to bring article up to WP:NBAND failed. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 2 October 2013 (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) 15:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I assume that the refs used fail WP:RS? Can they be discussed more? Ping me when this is done and I'll revisit to see if I can now endorse deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Jordan

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

Article subject got brief media attention when her husband, Michael Hastings (journalist), died in a car crash. Fails WP:BIO. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After I started looking through NewsBank the sources of her appearances on national TV seem to go on endlessly (I've entered a few into the article). It is not puffery to say "regular appearances". She has been described as both a speechwriter and "adviser" to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as well as a "Republican strategist". The mathematical count of 'words' about her is minimal, but those words are quite significant. If you believe someone with so much national exposure and political influence is significant. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good finds; or at least better than what I was able to dig up. Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think her career as a speechwriter, reporter and analyst are sufficently notable to merit her inclusion per Wikipedia's guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Warlitner

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

Apart from the Newport News orbituary, I find no other sources to cite. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone using an anonymous IP attempted to remove sources I added to the article.[13] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. The two references were duplicates of the obituary. They were also not in the correct inline <ref> </ref> format. Thanks for trying to add some references. Do you recall anything notable he did? Robert.Harker (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your revert. The reference is not repeated. You are confusing an official obituary with a newspaper article. They are not the same thing, have you actually read them? They are completely different. In addition you removed a second reference that was never in the article. Thirdly you removed the external links section inexplicably. Not every reference needs to be inline cited, and it's certainly no justification to delete references from an article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Certainly not the most important subject in the world, but there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Had some significant achievement over a long career. Seems to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2013 (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) 15:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effi Wizen

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like should be notable, has done a lot of things and obvious talent. But there are no independent sources about Effi Wizen, such as biographical pieces in magazines and newspapers. This source for example says (in translation):

"On Tuesday, the Polo Paulinia opened an animation studio 3D, billed as the largest and best equipped in Latin America. Based on the model of Industrial Light and Magic of George Lucas.. Under the auspices of the Israeli Effi Wizen.."

Impressive, but not a source about Wizen. Same problem with the other sources, they mention him in the course of his job duties, but nothing specifically about Wizen of significance. Many of the claims of significance are unsupported: "Wizen created one of the first film digital compositing systems" is unsupported; "one of the first specialists in Computer Animation and Visual Effects" is unsupported; "he founded the post production house" is unsupported; "Wizen created the consortium" is unsupported. Whoever wrote this must be using sources we don't have access to, or has personal knowledge and connection to the topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow why the above quote you helpfully focus us on is in your view not a source about Wizen. It refers to him, by name -- to the extent that it does so it is about him. Certainly, it is not primarily about him. But while articles solely about a person are excellent indicia of notability, they are not a sine qua non. As long as we have sufficient other indicia.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair call. I don't think someone is notable for a job position (with some exceptions). Simply being a CEO or entrepreneur or whatever his title is, and a few tangential mentions. If it's a CREATIVE position we would judge based on works. MichaelQSchmidt made a case for that below after I !voted; my sense was this is a close case and that since the article contains what might be WP:PUFF by someone who might be COI I leaned to the delete; I also wondered at the contradiction of the many big claims made in the article vs. so few films, and of those not great success, and so few professional awards and honors. And no supporting evidence of the claims made. So all these concerns I went with D. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. We do across our notability guidelines, to your point, certainly in a great number of cases (though that is not the issue here) view someone as notable based on their having certain positions -- whether the President of a country, or Dean of a university, or player in a highest level professional sports league. But, not the issue here, as I said. Also, even if we don't have an article primarily about a person, they meet our criteria if we have sufficient coverage, with sufficient indicia of notability. Issues of puffery and COI, while ones that I am also as a general matter sensitive to, are ones best addressed by tagging and normal editing -- AfD is not for cleanup, and an article of an otherwise notable person should not be deleted because of such issues (rather, they should be addressed as indicated). As to why there isn't greater coverage unearthed, one possibility that jumps out at me is that those articles that we do have are largely in Portugese and German (where google coverage is lesser than in English) -- and we don't even have his name in Hebrew, to do a search in his native language.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, aware of those exceptional cases but there is nothing for business people in the notability guidelines. Believe me I wish there was because so many times I have seen business people deleted who I thought were notable. The puffery issues can be cleaned up but they made me distrust some of the claims being made that would otherwise make this person notable. It is possible the sources are in foreign languages but I searched *.br (eg. "Effi Wizen" site:.br) *.il and *.de before making my vote. Did not search his Hebrew name. Regards. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep ~~delete~~ ~~because~~ even though sources verifying his works do not give enough detail about his life to support a decent article. Even his RTS Television Awards nomination did not itself receive notice. Even though not a violation of WP:BIO, we can allow it back once this person receives some media attention for who is is and not for what he has done (though it would seem that they are intricately inter-related). However, under WP:ANYBIO the nomination could be enough to allow this to remains and grow over time and through regular editing... and WP:CREATIVE #1 & #2 it might be seen that his works themselves have received enough attention (mostly in non-English sources) to meet that SNG,[14][15][16][17][18][19] which is why my ~~delete~~ stance is "weak". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upped to weak keep above. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Soures such as the Hollywood Reporter (The world's hottest production facilities) October 14, 2010

note that he was then the head of visual effects for Estudios Quanta, "a major Sao Paulo- based regional film industry player". There are some foreign language sources such as this one as well. His entrepreneurial efforst and his work with film companies has in fact been covered. I think the subject satisfies our notability guideline. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the above keeps and comments. Not the strongest notability I've seen at AfD, but passes the bar. Sufficient coverage/accomplishments, as reflected in sources from around the world in multiple languages.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only keep vote is unfortunately not policy-based.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Hastie

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won the Irish Cup in 1994 and played in the 1994–95 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup [20] 91.51.141.98 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league, and winning honours in a semi-pro league does not confer notability). Giant Snowman 15:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has only been with a couple of fullypro teams but failed to make appearance , hence not played in fully professional league and lack WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.RRD13 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kadmon (character)

AfDs for this article:

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

Original AFD was muddied by some sock puppeting and a fairly unclear consensus. Though the promotional material has been mostly removed, the article is still in too much of an in-universe writing style, and the sources seem to be mostly primary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete, salt, burn with fire Consensus on the AfD that closed mere hours ago was pretty clear and obvious. It does not take much review of the article, the ref's and the arguments from the other AfD to see that this "article" does not and should not belong on the English Wikipedia ES &L 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid original research and stick to the AfD rules. There is no argumentation in your comments. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 14:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least I know the rules - you're making up bizarre interpretations that are contrary to WP:CONSENSUS ... and consensus is the BIGGEST rule on Wikipedia ES &L 14:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CONSENSUS I am not understanding well? Please explain in details. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 14:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because the two reasons of this AfD are wrong. Here are my explanations:

In universe:

It's not in "in-universe" style, because it's clearly written that this character is a writer. There is also written that this author appears on the National TV and Radio substituted by an actor. The real voice of this person and the real look of this author is kept anonymous. To be anonymous does not mean to be fictional - fiction is something that does not exist. Somebody can write, be a source of conspiracy theories and be hidden for security/obvious reasons. I am convinced that the article explain it very well. It also says that the actor wear a mask and speaks the text written by Adam Kadmon (the writer). I clearly see that there is absolutely no in-universe kind of writing. If somebody still thinks there is something written in a "in-universe" style, please give clear examples and it's possible to assess them in the article.

Primary sources:

Actually there are only 2 primary sources out of 34 links. And they are youtube and Adam Kadmon's official website. According to the rules primary sources can be used, but cannot be the sole source of information. They must be always supported by verifiable and reliable secondary and tertiary source that are independent of the subject. In this case this condition is met. Thus the article should be kept because it fully meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Thanks --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 14:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it or userfy it. As I noted in the first AfD, this article is currently in terrible shape, but there is coverage of the subject. In English, there's "How Adam Kadmon Made the Leap From The Kabbalah to Italian Television", The Forward, April 21, 2013 (describing him as "the mysterious and much talked about Italian television personality and conspiracy theorist Adam Kadmon, who always appears on TV with a mask to hide his identity") and a mention in a 2013 New York Times article [21] ("the show’s host, Adam Kadmon, who plays a mysterious masked vigilante who investigates topics like Ustica, underskin microchip implants and, more recently, Michael Jackson’s prophecy about Sept. 11, and favors the French missile theory.") In Italian, there's a lot of press that shows up in GNews [22].

The Italian Wikipedia article, it:Adam Kadmon (personaggio televisivo) has undergone some back-and-forth editing in the last few days and seems to have improved noticeably (at least in the most recent version I saw)[23]. Based on all this I'm inclined to think he's a notable Italian TV/radio character known for presenting conspiracy theories.

That still leaves the problem of our current English Wikipedia article, which is utterly confusing and unencyclopedic in style, replete with purple promotional prose such as "High-skilled in martial arts and t'ai chi ch'uan, Adam Kadmon is said to possess the ethics of a superhero such as not harming innocents and the tenacity of a soldier of Special Forces" and "he talk about the very important rule of the humanity's wisdom to defeat the Illuminati Conspiracy and all others world's biggest criminal organizations" and "According to the most experienced researchers in esoteric cultures, it would seem that "Adam Kadmon" is the same man called "the Deliverer" or "the Seven" respected by the world's most powerful secret societies that are silently protecting him in his efforts to improve quality of life of every human being."

So, while I think the character is probably notable, I can't bring myself to !vote "keep" for stuff like this. My suggestion: either (1) stub this thing down to a sourced paragraph or two along the lines of the sourced factual content in the current version of the Italian Wikipedia article, using the Forward and New York Times descriptions noted above to identify him, simply, as an Italian TV/radio personality who maintains an aura of anonymity and presents conspiracy theories on Mistero and elsewhere; or (2) userfy it until it's cleaned up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inputs. The article today was shortened and further neutralized. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 08:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub, Userfy or Delete, for all the reasons listed by • Gene93k. If it cannot be rendered down into a properly neutral POV - without excessive conflict, sock-puppetry or effort - then delete. I hesitate to nominate for deletion outright, again for some of the same reasons • Gene93k lists above, but - speaking for myself - I am also not convinced that simply being a media personality or having articles written by third party sources in Italy is a worthy qualifier of notability for the En.Wikipedia (nor am I convinced that the sources in the article are all valid sources supporting notability), and therefore would be just as happy to see it deleted, and if it is a valid, truly notable subject for an article here, be submitted to AfC and let it pass or fail there on its own merits. besieged^talk 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean per Arxiloxos? All I did here was deletion sorting. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your edits were more coherent than some of the other contributions here! Thincat (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this a real character expressing his own views uinder a pseudonym, or a fictitious character played by an actor, expressing views that may be someone else's or maybe nobody's? The article is by no means clear about this and the very first sentence is confusing. This may be why there is disagreement about whether it's in-universe. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If it's a real person, the article title is misleading, too. --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In short: because of marketing reasons is told to be a real "superhero" with a detailed story while it's likely to be a character by some unknown author(s). To be honest there are no serious "investigation" about his real story/identity since he's not taken into any consideration out of conspiationists' milieu. BTW I have to underline fivestore (used as a source) is the merchandise store of Mediaset's. Furthemore Edizioni Piemme is a branch of Mondadori group, currently owned by Fininvest, which owns also Mediaset itself so, definitely, both of are not supposed to be considered as neutral source. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vituzzu, that's very helpful. --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Bible is written and advertised by people from the same Church and Religion, like the same company. But this doesn't make it unencyclopedic. According to the rules primary sources are good if confirmed from secondary/tertiary independent references. Regards. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 08:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. There are plenty of neutral, reliable secondary sources about the bible. To imply that Adam Kadmon is encyclopedic because the bible is encyclopedic is ridiculous. --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding, because I agree with you. I was just saying that the fact that good informations are given by primary source (which is not a blog, but the biggest and richest company in Italy) it's not bad as far as those sources are confirmed by reliable and verifiable secondary ones. My apologies if I wasn't clear, I just was trying to make some good comparison, but it looks like it wasn't a good one :) --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 09:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, thanks. But you're right, it wasn't a good comparison. You can sometimes use a primary source to cite uncontroversial information, but not for controversial information -- and anything remotely promotional is already controversial. When you say "the Bible is written and advertised by people from the same Church and Religion", what that really means is that we cannot use the bible as a source for the church's claims -- not even when there are other sources. So we cannot cite the bible to say "The world was created in six says", although we we can cite it to say "The bible states that the world was created in six days". Also, please take note of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The fate of this article and its sources should be decided on their own merits by WP policies, not by comparison with other articles and sources. --Stfg (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy If he's a "pseudonymous writer", then behind the pseudonym there's a real person, but no real person is a superhero, and the use of the term "character", rather than, say, "television personality", suggests fiction. There's so much ambivalence about all this that the article is certainly not ready for mainspace. There's also much concern over promotional intent, and the melodramatic "classified" in the infobox is ridiculous. I half suspect that there's a genuine notable topic hiding somewhere in here, but the present article doesn't present it. A good editor has offered to help, so I suggest userfying it to give it a chance. --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript Editor Baffle gab1978 has started work on improving the article. I strongly suggest not closing this until we can see what happens. --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed my !vote: Since Baffle gab1978 has partly stubbed it, I've reviewed it again. I'm now convinced that the subject is notable. For example, the Illuminati book is published by a mainstream publisher and sells on amazon.it, which carries 46 reviews of it (almost all very favourable). However, the second half of the article is still far too heavy with POV. The first paragraph of the Conspiracy theories section witters with paranoia about defamation and slander and how Kadmon "explained" (non-neutral term), all this cited to an interview with Kadmon himself (not neutral) linked to a web page that doesn't in fact carry the interview. The last bit of that paragraph isn't cited at all. The second paragraph of the section begins with the most ridiculous appeal to authority: "According to the most experienced researchers in esoteric cultures ...". The Critical reception is almost as bad. So my !vote stands at userfy. It would change to keep only if those two sections were completely deleted or at least confined to stating neutrally what is to be found in neutral sources. By the way, the title should be changed to Adam Kadmon (television personality), just as the Italian article is Adam Kadmon (personaggio televisivo). --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks Stfg; I've checked a few of the Italian-language references, via Google translate, and it seems the person/character/pseud/whatever has been written about non-trivially in reliable sources; most of which are in Italian. Obviously we discount the blog and Youtube; and Mediaset/Fivestore seem to be primary sources, per original AfD. Of the English-language sources provided, one (forward.com) is non-trivial and the other, (New York Times) is a trivial mention. I've removed some of the nonsense from the article, and I think I can clean it up further (I've been busy IRL for the past 2 days, which is why there's been little activity). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, per Stfg. I'm being charitable; the first AfD close was a good one, and one editor refusing to accept a consensus to get this fansite out of mainspace strongly tempts me to !vote delete. The article currently does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENTERTAINER, even with the few possibly-reliable Italian sources, and when the socks start to come out (this is the IP above's sole contribution to WP) that's never a good sign. If deleted, salt. Miniapolis 20:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actuallu it does meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENTERTAINER - read "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique", "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" as well as "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." and "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.".

And a very important point. You cannot influence the notability of an article based on the sockpuppets! An article should be based on the article itself according to WP:GNG. If there are sockpuppets or not this does not have to influence the notability of the article. So your statement "when the socks start to come out... that's never a good sign" is a sign of you being influenced by sockpuppets, but remember that an article meeting WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:ENTERTAINER has all the rights to stay, no matter what the sockpuppets do. Regards. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 10:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, the article from September 21 until September 26 was highly modified (stub) by User:Baffle_gab1978. Thus, the admins should check it in the current state. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 10:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson v. Johnson County Community College

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

Non-notable intermediate appellate court opinion, unpublished in the federal reporter, table case (along with 27 other unpublished cases having the same cite). Not especially important as a matter of law, only cited in three other cases. GregJackP Boomer! 04:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important decision cited in multiple cases and well-covered in reliable and verifiable sources in the press based on the nature of the case and its relevance in privacy law. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google Search has revealed that there are a lot of references to this case on the web. It clearly has some level of importance in the world of workplace law and privacy and has been discussed in multiple sources, books, articles, etc. For example, Google Books turns up references to the case in over 600 books. There's clearly something to it and I believe that it is worth keeping the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important case law which went all the way to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. — Cirt (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merritton Tunnel

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

Fringe ghost hunting sources whose interest lies in "spooky details" such as construction deaths and gravesites may find the place interesting, but there is no "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" required by WP:GEOFEAT. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. While the sources referenced should be swapped-out for more reliable ones, the underlying entry is not focused on "spooky details" and merits retention. Natty10000 | Natter 03:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any WP:RS references that discuss this particular tunnel in depth? The two mainstream sources given [24][25] only discuss the Welland Canal in general. They do not establish why this tunnel might be notable outside of a small group of ghost hunters. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news, since I've been trying to find reliable independent sources. Can you share them with us? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google Books and Google News? For example the Annual Report of the Bureau of Industries for the Province... - Page 8 http://books.google.com/books?id=cl8TAAAAYAAJ Ontario. Bureau of Industries - 1891 states that "Two were killed on the G. T. R. at Merritton tunnel and three were seriously hurt in a collision. There have been a great many more accidents on these roads, but the employés appear to be afraid to give the information ; neither will they state..." There's the The Hoosier Packet: News and Journal of the Canal Society of... http://books.google.com/books?id=w80fAQAAMAAJ

2007 stating "It is known as The Great Western Railway Tunnel, The Grand Trunk Railway Tunnel, The Merritton Tunnel, and as The Blue Ghost Tunnel. "It passes under the 3rd canal between locks 18 and 19. When the railway line was double tracked, the..." There are cites in the article. The nom has noted it's been a focus of ghost hunters. What more is needed? It's a keeper. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even the lowly New York Times appears to have covered the tunnel: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00913F93F5E10738DDDA10894D0405B8185F0D3. Surely there is some Wikipedian foolish enough to subscribe to that fishwrapper who can tell us what they had to say? Sure, most of what they print is largely fictional, but such is life. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. Google books does not allow me a preview of content, but I assume every gruesome death is accounted for. I've added the new sources and will recommend a Keep. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a nice video source. I look forward to seeing the article greatly expanded. Some images would be nice as well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: Six People Perish In Grand Trunk Tunnel .‎ Spokane Daily Chronicle - Oct 10, 1904 "Six employes of the Grand Trunk railway were suffocated to death by cool gas today Intha St. Clair tunnel, which runs under the St. Clair river from Port ..."

GAS KILLS SIX IN A TUNNEL.; Heroic...‎ New York Times

… By Death .

Six Railway Employes...‎ Daily Tribune

In St. Clair Tunnel .‎ Warsaw Daily Union

Boston Evening Transcript - Meriden Morning Record

~~The four sources above are covering the same incident..~~

TRAINMEN ASPHYXIATED.; Three Deaths from Foul Air in a...‎

New York Times - Nov 30, 1897

-Asphyxiation caused the death of three men in the Grand Trunk Railway tunnel last night. The dead are Henry J. Courtney, engineer; Arthur Dunn, conductor, ..."

Thru .Die By .Gas.‎ Milwaukee Journal

*THE BIG ST. CLAIR TUNNEL; CEREMONIES AT ITS FORMAL OPENING...‎ New York Times - Sep 20, 1891 "At the ends of the approaches are junctions with thel;raud Trank Railway on the ... The cost of the tunnel proper was $1460000. The Grand Trunk l,et, ... "

The Tunnel Opened .Under The Water .To...‎ Spokane Review

The St. Claim Tunnel.‎ Toronto Daily Mail

1891-tex .The World's Greatest .Who...‎ Philadelphia Record

~~St. Joseph Herald~~ Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not so sure that the sources about the "St. Clair Tunnel" refer to the tunnel that is the subject here; I think those may in fact refer to a different tunnel on the Grand Trunk line, for which we already have the article St. Clair Tunnel. I might still be inclined to preserve the information about this lesser-known Merritton Tunnel, based on its age and separate historical significance. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this tunnel goes by several names. I tried to list only sources dealing with it but I see that in at couple instances I did include results for the other tunnel. I have struck those. Still, there is quite a lot of coverage for this tunnel going back 125 or so years. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep upon consideration of the matter. A nice, verifiable article. 67.84.20.247 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shardul Pandey Talks

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

Internet radio program that does not pass our notability guidelines. There's no coverage of anything outside of the website it's hosted on, and the site itself appears to be just promoting hosting and other services. In fact, other than some of the odd interview transcripts there's nothing at all to even suggest any evidence of this. The article was previously about the host and deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shardul Pandey. —SpacemanSpiff 03:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 2 October 2013 (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) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not even notable for the WP:ONEEVENT that the article claims makes the subject notable. No coverage found in any WP:RSes. Simply not notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Lark

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

Non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews. reddogsix (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous status of "non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews" was immediately generated after the page was created with a short paragraph about the actor (her name and the information that she is an actress). Minutes later, more information, references and links were added.--Vivinabel (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Solid credits in theater and screen in 3 different countries. Interviewed by newspapers and networks. Award-winning^[1].--AbiRed (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — AbiRed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The "newspaper interview" has nothing to do with the article subject and the "networks" item is a social media site that is currently down. Regardless neither provide adequate secondary references to support verifable, independent sourcing for the article. reddogsix (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The biography needs to be filled out but this recently written article (10/1/2013) has improved in the few days since being nominated and references have been added. It's a decent stub, I've seen actor stubs with 1/10 of the content this page has. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. As an aside, I think it's crazy that 8 minutes after this article is posted on to Wikipedia, it gets a PROD, then nominated as a AfD. Articles aren't expected to be B- or C-Class minutes after they're created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just how has the article been improved. I don't see a plethora of support for the article or even a small smattering of verifable, independent non-trivial support for the article - actually to be honest the majority of references are IMDB or self-generated. No one is asking for a completed article at inception, but where are the references that support notability?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (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) 15:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can anyone comment on whether any of her roles have been significant, as required by WP:NACTOR? It doesn't look like it, but I'm not familiar with many of the roles listed. I can't find any mention of her on Google, either. The award listed earlier seems to be for the web series, not her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular gear helicopter

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

WTF not notable. At best a paragraph in a helicopter description article, apart from that the content is almost meaningless. Petebutt (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't make sense?? Probably the worst written article I have ever seen :-)Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prose makes sense--drive trains are an important part of a helicopter's mechanical design--but the article seems to exist solely to promote the author's invention of an alternative drive train. I was unable to find any other sources about this design, so I believe this topic fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. A non-notable topic and a promotional article suggest deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This article is all over the place; per Deathlibrarian, it really doesn't make sense. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business technology management

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

Article seems to be written by btmcorporation.com with most of the small number of references and "see also" pointing back to their company. It may be a legitimate topic but I think this article should be scrapped. Bhny (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided but probably delete based on obvious promotional tone and lack of suitable third-party sources. I began searching at Google News with "BTM Institute business technology management" and this is what I saw, probably more than half press releases (republished and original) and articles written by people affiliated with BTM Institute (such as this one and this one) thus promotional and not third-party (conflict of interest). I should also note that the first pages of news results show these problems and I finally something that wasn't a COI in 4th page here but it doesn't help much. In these results, you'll also find foreign results that pretty much look like republished PR. A search at Google Books also found results but are concerningly written by Faisal Hoque, a member of the institute and one of the writers of the COI articles. In that Google Books results, there are two results aren't affiliated with BTM Institute, and they are this (slim chance of usefulness though) and this (another slim chance because it's a brief mention). One final search all around failed to provide anything else. A search at thefreelibrary.com provided more press releases. I'm open to retracting my vote but based on my searches and the article's tone, I doubt there is much hope for this article at this time. For being an "institute" and a business science, there sure isn't much to support this article. No prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2013 (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) 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional involved in the problem space described by this article, I see no reason to include it in Wikipedia at all. I heartily support deleting it. The core concept of "business technology management" is simply an attempt, by one commercial organization (hardly an institute), to rebrand the field of Enterprise Architecture under a moniker of their choosing in order to improve their ability to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. This is clearly a commercial activity (advertising). If others deem the "branding" to be noteworthy, I'd support a redirect so that the term "Business Technology Management" redirects to the article for "Enterprise Architecture". Nickmalik (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is so badly worded as to be word salad. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bicrement

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; notability of a question in Stackoverflow.com is not clear; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide—it isn't desirable to have separate articles showing, trivially, how to add 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., to a variable in Java. This isn't the same situation as with increment, a primitive operation in both assembler language and many high-level languages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previously tagged with PROD, removed by author. I can't say that this is suitably notable. It has a couple of mentions, but doesn't seem to have caught on very well. (You beat me at proposing this AfD) {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can see, this is a neologism that has circulated on forums and blogs, but is not in common use and not notable. Chris857 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this listed twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erpert (talk • contribs)

I used ~~twinkle~~ page curation to nominate it for deletion, but somebody else did it at the same time, that's probably why. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 12:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I'm prepared to agree that this could be notable, if someone, somewhere has done serious work on a unary bicrement operation, its possible advantages, and that there is published sourcing to support this. However so far we have bicrement equated (incorrectly) with a commonplace binary addition of 2. That isn't original or notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition based no self-published sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viacom (original). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viacom Enterprises

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

Page contains information that can be best summarized in a single paragraph on Viacom (original). No need for a separate article. Freshh (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, merge with the main Viacom article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Articles don't have to be deleted in order to be merged, people. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:41, 2 October 2013 (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) 15:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The main Viacom article should cover this.IrishStephen (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that there is insufficient reliable coverage to establish notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Bridge

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Limited sources, one which just says "Transformers#US24". Lacks GNG. ///EuroCarGT 01:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources (blogs and primary sources only). Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not notable enough for a seperate article Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~KEEP to Transformers technology, per WP:Before C4 which states that if the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. With some additional research I found dozens of articles mentioning the Space Bridge from the recent film. I added one here. Keep this article. Mathewignash (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Articles, even from reliable sources, that only discuss in-universe information about the Space Bridge (such as the part that it played in the recent film) are not enough to display notability. This should either be merged into Transformers technology or one of the articles proposed for creation below by The Bushranger . --Jpcase (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs) reasoning, I know we don't delete a lot of Transformers articles. JJ98 (Talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 14 October 2013 (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) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be something that can be salvaged as a standalone article. Alternatively List of Transformers objects or List of Transformers artifacts might be an appropriate merge-creation for this, Matrix of Leadership, and other "bits and bobs" that lack individual out-of-universe notability but, as a group, are worth mentioning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Transformers technology or delete. Topic is not notable and does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.welovesoaps.net/2013/02/winners-4th-annual-indie-soap-awards.html

[1] ttp://www.welovesoaps.net/2013/02/winners-4th-annual-indie-soap-awards.html

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Braund}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam B Smith}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterQuest Group}}