Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:18, 13 February 2014

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 February >

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 Snow close. This isn't a hoax per se since this is about a fictional world, but the lack of any coverage for this as of yet unreleased series shows a clear lack of notability. There is a valid concern over this being a promotional article as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far Forest Scrolls

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

Contested PROD. Non notable fictional universe. Some references are spurious. Note that the disclaimer notifying the reader that this is all tosh was at the bottom of the article: I moved it to the top, since there was no mention of the fact that this is all a figment of a somebody's imagination. TheLongTone (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails all inclusion criteria miserably. Potentially appropriate for {{db-hoax}} or the speedy deletion criteria currently being considered relating to people using WP as a webhost. Stalwart111 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This one is off the charts in failing... well everything. Concur with Stalwart111 that this comes very close to WP:HOAX material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an elaborate hoax. At best, fiction with no real world notability. The citations are bogus. Most of the external links for the cited authorities are at free hosting websites. The Far Forest Scrolls website suggests this is an unpublished project. Not enough to satisfy WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 05:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon

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

Reopening AfD on request. I had previously speedily closed the third AfD. Due to the greater than one month interval, I will instead open a fourth AfD and refer back to the third AfD for nominator's argument and reasoning. Safiel (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge- ~~This is the 2nd nomination in 2 months.~~ A need resources tag needs to be added, because there have to be sources for this. This is more than a definition for Wiktionary, because there is explanation or theory behind it. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- So where are those sources? Without them, how can we have a meaningful article, even as a stub? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I asked the closer of the previous AFD to reopen it, after I had closed Talk:Baader-Meinhof phenomenon#RfC:_Page_name.
It was clear from that RFC that editors were impeded from discussing the fate of the article by the lack of reliable sources. However, the 3rd AFD had been snow-closed by a non-admin only 16 hours after it opened, despite the lack of sources and despite the 2nd AFD having had much greater participation and led to the article's deletion for lack of sources.
This is a perverse situation. Notability is not an abstract policy. It reflects the fact that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, and without those sources a topic cannot be covered in accordance with agreed standards for verifiability. I have no dogs in this race, other than a desire to avoid this perverse situation of editors being unable to manage an article because of a lack of the reliable sources necessary for its existence.
I hope that this AFD will be allowed to run its full 7 days, so that editors can assess whether anything significant has changed since the second AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a few more sources to the article, but they're not high quality sources. If I were to recommend keeping this article it would be because the term seems to have some small amount of traction and someone might actually want to look it up here. On the other hand, my real preference would for this to be a redirect to some more serious article on a psychological phenomenon, with perhaps a small section describing this light-hearted colloquial name for it. However, I don't know enough about it to recommend a merge target and the people who seem to know enough about it don't seem to be able to agree on exactly what psychological effect this is another name for. Thus I don't feel comfortable yet recommending a merge here; where would we merge it to? Perhaps if people who understand the issue can come to consensus on where it should be merged to it would be easier to come to a conclusion here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The RFC reached no consensus on where if any to merge to. The lack of good quality sources makes it difficult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Attentional bias would be a good place for it, except it doesn't account for the surge of use of a rarely known word because it was used in popular media. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of cognitive biases, which includes a definition of the apparent synonym “frequency illusion”, would be another possibility, based on the definition in Arroyo 2013. ––Agyle (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @alf laylah wa laylah: witt all respect to your efforts, I have to notice that all these sources you added are not reliable sources in the context of the article: they are not coming from experts in psychology or smth. All these articles speak of something else, then throw in a cute word, and then thorw in an explanation of this word, possibly even snipped off wikipedia :-) When I was looking at this article some time ago, I saw mutlitudes of such references, but added none for this reason: there references are useless: they are just usage examples and do not contribute encyclopedic context (beyond your slight original research: it is your observation that "Its usage has since spread to other areas of the United States[4] and elsewhere in the English-speaking world").Staszek Lem (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I'm completely aware of all of that. It's why I put the quotes from the sources into the citations. I'm just grooming it for its big moment on stage, not arguing that it should be kept.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I'm really confused. When searching the scholarly literature, this phrase seems mostly to be used to discuss the phenomenon of the seemingly anomolous support for the Baader-Meinhof gang among the German middle class or the seemingly inexplicably radikalisierten Kinder der Nazi-Generation. Perhaps even leaving this as a redirect without some kind of disambiguation would do our readers a serious disservice.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as confusing. The phrase “Baader-Meinhof phenomenon” occurs as a description of the rise and popularity of the militant group, the same way you could speak of the Tea Party phenomenon or Justin Bieber phenomenon. It is also the name of a specific psychological “phenomenon” or cognitive bias, which is the subject of this article. In practice it seems that context always makes it clear which is intended. ––Agyle (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps I spoke to soon. While the context always seems clear, at least one author (see books.google snippet-view) has used the term as a name for a phenomenon related to the militant group (in that author's definition, it seems to mean the state's overreaction to the militant group, which does not seem to match the more descriptive use of the phrase by other authors referring to the formation, rise, and activities of the militant group). If it is being used as a name in reliable sources, rather than as a general descriptive phrase, then some form of disambiguation is appropriate. ––Agyle (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based strictly on the nominator's WP:ONEDAY and WP:OR grounds for deletion (listed in the 3rd nomination). I found five reliable-source books that mention the term. All are minor/trivial coverage of the topic (two are in fictional novels), but I think they invalidate the WP:ONEDAY basis for the third nomination, and validate Safiel's speedy keep closure of the third nomination based on WP:SNOW. If the deletion nomination were based on notability or some other grounds, that should be clarified so we know what we're trying to evaluate; I'm not going to delve into the topic more deeply than necessary.

Arroyo, Sarah J. (2013). Participatory Composition: Video Culture, Writing, and Electracy. Southern Illinois University Press. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-8093-3147-5. (“Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, or frequency illusion, a form of cognitive bias in which something that has recently been brought to your attention is “suddenly everywhere” with alarming frequency and regularity.”)
Penenberg, Adam L. (2013). Play at Work: How Games Inspire Breakthrough Thinking. Penguin Group US. p. 161. ISBN 978-1-101-62302-2.
Rabhan, Benji (2013). Convert Every Click: Make More Money Online with Holistic Conversion Rate Optimization. Wiley. p. 215. ISBN 978-1-118-75974-5.
Galchen, Rivka (2008). Atmospheric Disturbances: A Novel. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-374-20011-4. [FICTION]
Watson, Wendy Lyn (2009). I Scream, You Scream: A Mystery A La Mode. Penguin Group US. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-101-14065-9. [FICTION]

––Agyle (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing novels that contain the phrase as reliable sources that speak to its notability? And doing it with a straight face? And books on SEO-clickbait-blah-blah-etc.? Didn't it occur to you that everyone here already saw those and rejected them?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alf laylah wa laylah, no, I tried to make it clear that I am specifically not addressing notability, as that wasn't challenged in the most recent two AfD nominations. Tegrenath's AfD nomination contended that the topic was at least close to simply being made up (“Wikipedia is not for things made up one day” – see WP:ONEDAY). I find your attitude insulting and inappropriate; please keep the discussion civil. ––Agyle (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly continue to keep the discussion civil, yes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was pushing for deletion a bit ago but people really seemed to be trying to figure it out. As it stands now, I think the state of the article and editor consensus is even worse than before. If there is any scrap of information to be salvaged, I propose it be placed into a page with a broader purview that others have mentioned, such as the list of cognitive biases.
Regarding citations, the entire backbone of the page is based on an e-magazine article written by "staff" that's 3 paragraphs long. I don't doubt the facts it conveys, but I don't see any sense in clamoring for reliable sources when the very definition of the article's topic comes from what I feel is a poor one. I acknowledge that it has begun to appear with more frequency in reliable sources but notability of the topic is only one small piece of why I support deletion. It's quite messy. Tegrenath (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a diligent search, it turns out that while the meaning and usage of this phrase are easily established, there are no reliable sources which contain more than passing mentions or even, what's worse, mere uses, of it. Thus does it fail to meet the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the few solid references to the term are all in discussions of the group itself, and not about this cognitive bias. We might consider redirecting this to the group and adding things to the group's article regarding people's support for it, but having an article on a cognitive bias with this name is untenable. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discussion has revealed no reliable sources which provide more than a passing mention of the topic. Without reliable sources, it fails WP:GNG because there is nothing on which to base an article.
The topic may of course be mentioned in any other articles, but there is no foundation for for a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is sufficient sourcing and sources available to support notability. Deleting it for a failure to find subjectively sufficient sources seems to have little value. Some articles are meant to be short.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, probably a bit more prevalent than your garden variety neologism, given that it's mentioned in sources like Arroyo listed above. But still no substantial and independent coverage, as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would have declined speedy as well, but AfD consensus is clear.Mojo Hand (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Fannin

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

Speedy deletion request was declined because this artist claims to have exhibited at a "Duke of Richmond award in Chichester" - I can't even find evidence that such an award exists (though the National Open Art Competition is run by the Chichester Art Trust). The only news coverage I can see about him is an interview in AND magazine, whose journalism is so light weight the introduction is a copy-paste of Fannin's Wikipedia article! On the basis of the one dubious claim to notability and the fact the remainder of the article seems to be a promotion of his business activites cited to his websites, I believe this definitely fails WP:GNG spectacularly. Sionk (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment according to http://www.thenationalopenartcompetition.com/brochure/#/6/zoomed "This competition was established by our President the 10th Duke of Rochester in 1996", which seems to validate the name of he award to some extent. Any overly promotional content can of course be edited to be NPOV. DES ^(talk) 01:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wel, yes, but only if the subject was notable and there were reliable sources to use to support the article. Being one of 70-or-so exhibitors at an exhibition doesn't make an artist notable. Sionk (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever; everything's self-published and/or otherwise unreliable. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He seems to be a NN builder with a sideline as an artist. Exhibitions are essentially a means by which artists sell pictures, so that getting inot an exhibition does not confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have gone with the speedy. Szzuk (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also pretty clearly eligible for CSD G11. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Malik Live

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

No notable sources listed, contrary to WP:GNG. Article is also written like an ad, contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING. MikeMan67 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is unambiguous WP:SPAM and probably should have been speedy deleted (G-11). -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only this obvious spam, but also Nadeem Malik (Pakistani journalist), the show's host. Both seem like a violation of WP:NOT#FANSITE - I'm only finding information about a cricketer with the same name in news searches. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No one has provided any compelling evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 05:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Year

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

Not notable, per WP:GNG MikeMan67 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Non-notable as per WP:N and WP:GNG. No references failing WP:V. Could probably have been speedy deleted as per WP:A1 and WP:A7. N4 (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and no sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could be improved, but the topic is most likely notable, as Årets navn is mentioned in other articles in main stream media in Norway, like NRK (Norwegian National Broadcasting) [1]. VG's award of Årets navn is one of the most well-known awards in Norway, as it annually gathers an at least six digit number of votes in a country with five million citizens. There is a factual error in the article, as VG just ranks as the second biggest newspaper in Norway (messured by number of copies printed). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps improve the article by expanding a bit on why it's notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? You need to cite from multiple, independent third party sources, per WP:GNG. Or at least direct me to where I could find this information? I wasn't able to find anything myself along these lines. If you have reliable sources for what you say here, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. mikeman67 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I dunno if I should vote as I've created the article concerned. Whilst I admit the content of the article is rather sparse, a deletion will mean that articles for several smaller prizes, like Norwegian of the Year (Ny Tid), have to go, too. ~~By the way, I can't understand why I named it Name of the Year.~~ [I didn't.] It should be moved to Name of the Year (VG), as there are heaps of similar awards around the world. No More 18 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey there. Generally, things like WP:Other stuff exists aren't considered an inherently valid argument for keeping an article - see WP:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. As those articles mention, anyone can create an article, and this doesn't establish other articles' notability. After all, it was you who created Norwegian of the Year (Ny Tid). However, I do see that Grrahnbahr makes some interesting points about the award's notability that warrant some consideration. I think if some valid, independent, third party sources can be found it would help a lot. mikeman67 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Globehunters

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

This is the third creation of this article which has been twice deleted before (G-11 and A-7). It remains what it was, unambiguous WP:SPAM. Sources hugely fail WP:RS. Respectfully urge deletion with prejudice. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Hello, I'm the article creator. Thanks for your comments. Regarding the three sources, they are all articles written by independent news sources. I have edited the content so it is less promotional and I have also added a link to the page from within wikipedia.Jamest77 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - probably qualifies for speedy delete under G11. Reads as straight advertising. MikeMan67 (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Hi, the article has also been edited so hopefully it reads less like an advert now. Thanks.Jamest77 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not out-and-out spam anymore, and thus not eligible for speedy deletion, but I still feel that the company does not meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Four square. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Turner

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

Can't find any coverage, BLP is under-sourced anyway. James^x12345 21:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Four square under world championship section. There doesn't seem to be enough for a stand alone article and the sources suck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Electronic Caregiver Company

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

pure advertising. The refs are to minor nonselective publications or press releases. The content is generic praise of their product, "claims" for its performance, and some exceedingly minor charities. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to make any credible claim to notability per GNG and CORP. Sources appear to be varying combinations of primary, trivial and promotional and thus hugely fail WP:RS. All in all just another piece of WP:SPAM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. The article lacks significant independent reliable references. Reliable source coverage not found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 08:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Icecap (blog)

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

Unremarkable blog that fails WP:WEB; the only independent source (RealClimate) doesn't even mention the blog. Other sources mention it in passing, [2] [3] but nothing really significant. The closest anything comes to significant coverage in a reliable source is this post on National Review's blog, which is a blog and as such may not be reliable. Even if it is, though, more RSs would be needed to establish notability, and I couldn't find many other such sources. Jinkinson talk to me 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good amount of secondary source coverage. According to The Boston Herald (February 3, 2007) it is not just a blog but also a climate change working group. Hundreds of sources in Google Books for search of terms "Icecap" with "D'Aleo". Also try searching for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I didn't come across the Herald article; could you provide a link or citation? Also, searches on books.google.com (and other Google searches) do not return results that only contain the search terms; it uses an algorithm to guess at what results might interest the searcher. So while books.google.com returned around 110 results, maybe 25 actually contained "d'aleo" and "icecap", and of those, a half dozen or so are self-published. Also, I found hundreds of hits in google, but no independently-published reliable sources with more than a trivial sentence about the organization. I'll definitely reconsider my decision if any significant coverage turns up. ––Agyle (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, turns out it's not a secondary source, as it was written by D'Aleo, but it was indeed published in The Boston Herald, for what it's worth. Article title: "As you were saying … Alarmists, just chill out". Hope that is helpful, — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks. Highbeam has the first three paragraphs of the editorial (the rest is paywalled), and a forum post contains its apparent full text. Icecap doesn't seem to be mentioned; perhaps it occurs as part of the title in the author's signature, which isn't included in the forum post. ––Agyle (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge summarized version to Joseph D'Aleo, and include disambiguation on Icecap (disambiguation) (D'Aleo is founder of the organization and website, executive director of the organization). Fails general or website notability, and while there are several citations in reliable sources to papers from ICECAP, I could not find any independent reliable source coverage of the organization itself or its website more a one-sentence description. The Wikipedia article's title and opening sentence give the misimpression that ICECAP is simply a blog rather than an organization. As Cirt notes, it is the website of "International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project"; the organization's website is variously described as a blog and a portal (its own one-sentence description of itself as a portal is widely used). This paper from The American Behavioral Scientist describes the organization as a "think tank", and lists affiliations of several authors (possibly "climate experts") who cite an affiliation with ICECAP. D'Aleo alone seems to list ICECAP as his primary affiliation, and many trivial references in reliable sources just mention ICECAP as they introduce or cite him (e.g. Reagan, Michael; Denney, Jim (2011). The New Reagan Revolution: How Ronald Reagan's Principles Can Restore America's Greatness. St. Martin's Press. pp. 152, 361. ISBN 978-1-4299-8996-1.).

There are maybe 20 reliable source independently-published books that cite papers published on ICECAP's website. While the mentions are not directly about the website, they do provide some indication of its notability. Here are the first half dozen I checked:

Glover, Peter C.; Economides, Michael J. (2010). Energy and Climate Wars: How Naive Politicians, Green Ideologues, and Media Elites are Undermining the Truth about Energy and Climate. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4411-5307-4. Quotes D'Aleo and mentions and cites ICECAP several times.
Smerconish, Michael A. (2009). Morning Drive: Things I Wish I Knew Before I Started Talking. Globe Pequot Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-1-59921-517-4. Cites a paper from ICECAP on icecap.us.
Hennen, Scott; Denney, Jim (5 July 2011). Grass Roots: A Commonsense Action Agenda for America. Simon and Schuster. p. 355. ISBN 978-1-4516-0896-0. Cites two papers from ICECAP on icecap.us.
The Polar Times. American Polar Society. 2008. One sentence description of ICECAP & reference to one of their claims.
Sunshine, Glenn S. (30 August 2009). Why You Think the Way You Do: The Story of Western Worldviews from Rome to Home. Zondervan. p. 167. ISBN 978-0-310-32354-9. Single-sentence quote and reference of an Icecap paper.
Bassam, Nasir El; Maegaard, Preben (2013). Distributed Renewable Energies for Off-grid Communities: Strategies and Technologies Toward Achieving Sustainability in Energy Generation and Supply. Newnes. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-12-397178-4. Cites a paper from ICECAP on icecap.us.

While the website's papers are cited by other works, and its director, D'Aleo, is widely quoted, the big problem is the lack of independent coverage about the organization itself. A quality Wikipedia article would be either nearly empty, or depend almost exclusively on information from icecap.us. I think it's better to list a pared-down description of the website in the article about D'Aleo.

––Agyle (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 05:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 14:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Little Trick

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are trivial and fail WP:RS. A Google search turned up the usual mentions on sites like IMD that are excluded by RS but nothing substantive. Previously tagged PROD but tag was removed by anonymous editor. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom. I've had a search and can only find blogs etc. reviewing it, no RS. Someway off meeting WP:NFILM. SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember looking for sources when this was up for PROD and I wasn't able to find anything to show notability. Nothing has changed since then and none of the sources on the article are the type that we could use as RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look like there are any reviews outside of bloggers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand why a film with a former Superman actor and a million-dollar budget wouldn't get coverage, but if there's no coverage, there's no coverage. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Aslam

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

No apparent notability. Sources are promotional. Article looks like a resume. This is the third creation of this article by a WP:SPA. Previously deleted for G-11 advertising. 2nd creation was tagged PROD and subsequently speedy deleted when author indicated no objection to deletion. Article was quickly recreated. Request deletion with page protection to prevent 4th recreation without Admin approval. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from various sources and References are given in the article of various websites which features Pakistani or British Pakistani journalists and media personalities and they are very credible.I also studied various articles which are already on Wikipedia including the article on an other journalist of Pakistan, Hamid Mir. I tried to follow all the basic rules and writing style to improve this article.I believe there is no advertisement in it.If any thing in article in not fact I will be happy to consider that but raising objection without any solid reason seems biased to me.I am not sure what notability means in the eye of the person who is recommended the deletion.I request to kindly read the article again.If this article is against the Wikipedia Policy or look like resume then article regarding Mr.Mir and lot of other article which I studied and followed to write my article regarding Mr.Aslam must me deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mian22 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF, comparisons to Hamid Mir don't have much credibility. Inclusion here is determined by notability (WP:N) which usually requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I'm not seeing anything like that here. By comparison, Mir's career has been covered extensive in international press. Many of the sources provided seem self-published or to have been extracted from the same profile elsewhere. I certainly don't think they qualify as significant coverage in independent sources. Many are just directory sites where the subject is one of many listed - those do not confer notability. The LinkedIn-esque style of the article can be fixed but the lack of notability can't. Suggested this be creation-protected to ensure admin/community permission in the event of future proposed recreation. Stalwart111 01:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- He edits a minority language newspaper; has been a presenter on some minor radio of TV stations; and was an embedded jounralist in the 2nd Gulf War. None of it really enough to add up to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Official websites, Youtube, Vimeo, Zoominfo, a simple profile on some media search engines...this doesn't pass WP:GNG, and I'm not finding anything to justify passing the more specific WP:BASIC. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point this out that Mr.Aslam is working for ethnic media of UK.ARY digital is the biggest TV network of Pakistan.He also worked with other big names from ethnic media which I believe my friends who are commenting on this page have no knowledge.Its up to you either you keep it or delete it,it does not make much difference.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mian22 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann McNeill

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

~~Does not seem to meet the WP:PROF criteria. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn, please close. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:PROF. By crude Google Scholar measures she has a h-Index of around 40, with ~19 papers cited over 100 times (#1) (note there's a few papers in there by other A McNeills but generally it's easy to sort). There's some debate as to how #5 should be applied to countries with the British system of professorships, but she's held full professorships at highly regarded British universities (formerly University of Nottingham, now KCL, both in the Russell Group).[4] Also cited as an expert by the media (WP:PROF #7).[5][6][7][8] --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that I do not entirely understand how one measures notability by citation indexes, so if any other editor agrees with you, I will gladly withdraw. (I nominated it for deletion by default, despite my uncertainty, since the article has obvious COI issues. Note the constant reference to the subject in first person, and the username of the primary editor.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula - she meets WP:PROF. Also, I flipped the first and last name in the text.Kschlot1 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clear pass of WP:Prof. I cannot understand the nominator's rationale for this nomination. However, he has has the grace to offer to withdraw and I thank him for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe: When I see obvious COI, and I don't know whether the subject meets notability criteria, and I have no one obvious to ask (the page's creator was an SPA) my first recourse is to AfD. I am pleased to be corrected. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure). -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 17:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Judaism

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

This article seems to me to be an amalgam of some information from the Hinduism and Judaism, as well as from India–Israel relations and History of the Jews in India. There is no content on this page that indicates it merits a separate page. It is poorly written and sourced; most of the references are not scholarly works. Finally, there is a significant quantity of OR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The discussion, and the content now in the article, have convinced me the nomination is now unnecessary. In my defence, virtually all the significant content in the article was added by the creator after the nomination, and was from sources I was unaware of. Of course, this is definitely a good thing, all I am saying is that the nomination was warranted at the time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article seems like an original research. There are hardly any scholarly sources on the topic. --Rahul (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the time you prepare least surprising and least relevant points, you can actually contribute to the article instead. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BM, that is not a valid reason to keep it. You have not answered my points. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books that are published by Routledge, JHU, Suny, are not scholarly sources? Ok. "poorly sourced and written", However there is source for every single information. One source may need to be replaced for its highly common info. But I see no serious issue there, AFD is usually based on Notability. And the subject is notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be taken to AFD for other reasons, too. In this case, it is essentially duplicating a lot of material. There is no reason for this topic to have a separate page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now at this moment, nothing seems to be duplicated. There were number of religious leaders attending the summit, you could simply swap. Also the statistics, summary of Menasseh are no where explained like they has been explained on this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If previous version(1 day old) and current one are compared, there is huge difference. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. half-essay, half-fork, wholly dispensable. An inappropriate intersection of topics. -- Y not? 17:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y, Wrong. Nothing is forked. Considering the current page. Neither anything is written like Essay. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic had been untouched till creation of article and google search shows [9] there are scholarly works available on net who have compared both religions. Further, considering the fact there are new class of people (Hindus who are Jews or vice-versa) who call themselves Hinjew see google book search [10] - this is something interesting which I was not aware till now and can be easily expanded upon. This clearly indicates the article is NOT Original Research and it certainly passes NOTABILITY guidelines. Further, for other points like poorly written and lack of scholarly reference etc - for that maintenance tags are there and issues can be resolved by talk page discussions.Jethwarp (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, as just referring to the above "Find sources" proves: (1) Googling "Hinduism and Judaism" shows about 440,000 results; (2) "books" shows about 23,100 results; (3) "scholar" shows about 643 results; (4) "JSTOR" shows about 78 results. All in all this is obviously a serious topic for which many WP:RS and WP:V sources can be easily lined up. Effort should be put into improving the article. Perhaps contacting WP:EXPERT editors at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and asking for their input and help at improving the article would be a better service to building up WP as an encyclopedia. This nomination is unwarranted and the nominator would do well to read up on WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. IZAK (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and also perhaps WP:AADD. Jethwarp (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see that nominator has withdrawn his nomination but his arguments that nomination was warranted at that time is not justified. He/she should have read WP:BEFORE guidelines before nomination. Jethwarp (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make assumptions, JT. I DID indeed read those policies, very thoroughly, since this was the first time I was AfDing something. At that point, there was no content in there that precluded nomination. There was, in my opinion, not enough literature cited there to demonstrate notability, nor verifiability. I did indeed search for sources on the topic, and of course I found some, but they did not seem numerous enough to source an entire article. I also consulted another editor more experienced that myself before nominating. When the discussion here convinced me that the article could be salvaged, I withdrew the nomination. So, don't accuse me of bad faith, which is what you seem to be heading towards. Did you even read the article in the state it was when I nominated it? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Vanamonde93. Please do not take it personal. I have nothing against you or anyone else and assume good faith. I was just referring to the following suggestions referred to someone going for AfD in WP:BEFORE - If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {notability}, {hoax}, {original research}, or {advert}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. Jethwarp (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I request both of you to move on. This discussion is already over and no point in unnecessary commenting on the nominator's behaviour or anything else. The nomination was in good faith, and advising the op about the various policies to read once is more than enough. Nothing wrong with this afd, as it brought more scrutiny to this article...which is what we all wanted. It's not exactly a case of WP:Speedy keep or WP:SNOWBALL either so please no "I told you so"s and last wording. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I generally do not drag on unnecessary discussions of AfD as this is not the forum for that. But was forced to reply as I never accused him of any bad faith nominations but was just educating him that weather he is aware of these policies or not. I was not aware he has been already advised by you to read policies before AfD. This is my final comment. Good Bye!!! Jethwarp (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I misinterpreted something, due apologies. I should have kept my mouth shut, too. Have a good day. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Coffee

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

Subject of article is the founder and commissioner of a regional whiffleball league. References are from the league's own website and a national whiffleball website, neither of which are WP:RS. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. X96lee15 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I believe this probably should have been speedily deleted, per G11 or A9. Page creator appears to be page's subject, and has multiple edits in regards to this "Carl Coffee" individual. Certainly the page contains nothing notable. MikeMan67 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this would have qualified under A7, biography with no evidence of importance, let alone notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de Miralles

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be sufficiently notable. The topic of the article does not seem to have played a big role in the american war of independence. Also it does not cite any sources, and the article itself does not seem to be covered well by reliable sources. As such i don't think it qualifies as notable enough for a stand-alone article. King Of The Wise (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator". Seeing the other editor's views and visiting and researching for sites related to the articles (which, i know, I should have done before nominating the article) I realized that I did a mistake in nominating this page. I probably did this in a hurry, which was pretty bad of me aw'right, and should have done better research on the topic beforehand. Well anyways, sorry for troubling you guys. I don't usually do this, and always double check what I do, this time..... Anyways, I'll improvise upon my mistake and withdraw this nomination. Sorry again :) Won't do this again. Thanx for participatin' in the discussion.King Of The Wise (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books has lots and lots. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There's plenty of material about him.[11][12][13][14] A little effort WP:BEFORE would have scotched this Afd in the bud. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: Article was greatly improved after this AFD was started, and all participants in this discussion now support keeping it. Orlady (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlfield House

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

Not notable. All references are simply guide books &c. It's also highly promotional. TheLongTone (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been included such as reference to a book about historic buildings in Ireland. There are over 760 results in google books for Marlfield House. Marlfield House is a historic Irish building, a protected (listed) structure built in 18th century. It was a former residence of Earls of Courtown and is definitely notable. --7eventy7 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case write an article about the house & cite it with references to architectural books. As it stands its a promotional article about a hotel which happens to be in a (rather unremarkable looking) Georgian houseTheLongTone (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced to the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and I hope this is sufficient. I was under the impression that it is important not only to mention the history of the house, but also to mention it's use as a hotel today. If mentioning that the house is used as a hotel is against any of the policies I would be most grateful if you could help rectifying any issues. Your personal opinion that the house is "rather unremarkable looking" is highly welcome but I am sure it may appear differently to other people and it should not be a basis for deletion! I would like to remind that the house is a historic Irish building, a protected structure and a former residence of Earl of Courtown and therefore it is notable. 7eventy7 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed building, notable. --do ncr am 17:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If being a listed building makes it notable, I withdraw the nomination. Article creator is under the misapprehension that this is is notable because of the hotel development which has shafted the front elevation, but I've scrubbed most of the spam I think.TheLongTone (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides being a listed building, a remarkable amount of substantial coverage from multiple independent sources on this topic. The nom seems only concerned it looks like an advert - see WP:SOFIXIT. They can simply place an advert tag on it or re-edit the article so it doesn't look so much like an advert . The nom needs to become familiar with WP:AFD and specifically its WP:BEFORE which states that if an article can be improved with normal editing, it's not a candidate for AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your high horse, and read the whole discussion. When the aricle appeared ther was no mention of the places notability as a building: since that appeared I have edited the page accordingly.TheLongTone (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the version at time of nomination it already indicated a long notable history and with very in-depth coverage by reliable sources like the New York Times.--Oakshade (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels do rather tend to get mentioned in guide books and in the travel supplements of newspapers, much of which is PR driven. Ie the writer has been given a freebie. I don't think this really establishes notability.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an attack there on the integrity of both the New York Times and reporter Sarah Lyall! Do you you have a shred of evidence they received a "freebie" or does this WP:BLP violation need to be struck? (BLP applies to talk pages as well as main space.)--Oakshade (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. TheLongTone had a legitimate point that the original article was promotional. And it is true in general that travel guide books etc can be slanted with PR, and likely influenced by freebies. There is no specific BLP, no "attack". My "Keep" vote above was based on it being a listed building, which wasn't added until later, after TheLongTone and others had already improved the article. I think without it being a listed building, my guess is that the consensus would have been to Keep, but it is the listed building status that clinches it.

A lot of travel reports can be promotional, but a lot aren't. As a matter of fact, travel reporters routinely visit restaurants, hotels, etc. anonymously to ensure they don't get special treatment (ie "freebies"). TheLongTone is suggesting New York Times reporter Sarah Lyall was given a "freebie" in exchange for a promotional piece in the NYT. You really need evidence to back such a claim up.--Oakshade (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I sais was that PR freebies are not unknown and that the fact that a hotel has been written about in a travel supplement is not a valid claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the NYT is not an independent source or it's a paid advertising for the topic, WP:GNG makes no discrimination if coverage is from a "travel supplement." It could've been a piece called "I Love Marlfield House!" and it would still be considered significant coverage from a reliable source per GNG. If the reporter was paid or given "freebies" as you are claiming, that's basically synonymous with advertising. Do you have any evidence NYT reporter Sarah Lyall accepted "freebies"? Hint: "PR freebies are not unknown" doesn't count as evidence. --Oakshade (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheLongTone for bringing this up and for directly and indirectly improving this article. --do ncr am 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As this afd nomination (which was made in good faith) has improved the article and and help establish notability. Murry1975 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and not just because of the current condition: I would have said "keep" if I'd happened upon it five minutes after nomination. The promotional content was trimmable without totally ruining the article (no need for a WP:TNT deletion), and coverage in things published by names such as Wiley should generally be considered sufficient. Put this together with extensive 19th-century coverage of all things noble (i.e. there's going to be plenty of documentation on the house in publications about the owners), and you had something clearly notable at the time of nomination. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Waheed Avocats

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

Non-notable law firm. No indications within the article, or based on searches, that this firm merits inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V failed due to lack of references making it difficult to establish notability. From what I gather, there is no real claim to notability and the article fails WP:CORP and the WP:GNG. N4 (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was a lot of discussion about merging the content of this article into Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, although not quite enough to say that there was a consensus to merge. It may be worthwhile to start a merge discussion on the talk page of the article. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 05:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States

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

Duplicates the Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act and is boarder line original research. While yes Canada has agreed to this it should be captured in the actual article. Additionally, the article's creator has been on a soap box about this agreement and has been adding information to various Canadian Bank articles about it. A similar article was recently redirected to actual FATCA article however I do not feel a redirect would be appropriate in this case. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments may be needed to resolve this issue, as only two editors have commented so far. Also see the talk page.

My own feeling is this article may be needed if each country has its own conditions for agreeing, or there is some else different or notable about Canada's agreement of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merge to Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act#FATCA intergovernmental agreements. This title appears to be being used as a POV fork and appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS. Not a single source in the article discusses the actual agreement terms, just some onerous sounding "effects" to numerous Canadians and an "enormous" cost to Canadian banks. There's not so much in the criticism/controversy section at the main FATCA article that this needs to be spun off, nor does it appear the Canadian concerns are substantially different than those any other countries affected by FATCA. If some specific issue comes up with respect to this agreement, which I strongly believe would have to do with its interaction with the idiosyncrasies of Canadian law rather than general concerns with FATCA, it can most likely be addressed in the main FATCA article when it becomes an issue. However, I also support a delete given the redirect is not particularly helpful, and I don't see much page history here worth retaining.
Also, to respond to Jonpatterns' comment, I'm sure there are some slight variances between each agreement signed by each country, but whether those variances are significant needs to be borne out in the sources first, and even if so, more than likely can be covered in the main article or in a sub-article generally discussing the intergovernmental agreements. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. James500 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mendaliv: Please explain why you feel this article is a POV Fork. A POV fork is when contributors disagree about the content of an article and create another version of the article to promote a particular point of view. This is not the case here at all. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly because he does not understand what a POV fork is. It is perfectly reasonable to have an article on this treaty which describes support for, and opposition to, this treaty, in Canada and the US (as long as it gives due weight relevant viewpoints in Canada and the US). Bear in mind that unless FATCA is part of Canadian municipal law (which would not be the case in England with which I am familiar), the support and opposition in Canada is to this treaty, and any domestic legislation giving effect to this treaty, not to FATCA itself. (I am assuming that the Parliament of Canada will have to pass a piece of legislation to give effect to the treaty). And we probably need an explanation of any domestic legislation giving effect to this treaty. James500 (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC) It also occurs to me that Canada might be an unusual case because of the number of Americans living there. The two countries do share a border and use the same language. James500 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, this article is not a fork at all. The Act of US Congress (FATCA) and the bilateral treaty (FATCA agreement) are, on the face of it, not the same thing. They are separate documents. Whether the content of the article is forked is a different matter. James500 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That essentially presumes that the FATCA article should be solely about the Act of Congress rather than the system established by the Act and by the bilateral treaties. I don't see any reason to treat them separately. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prima facie, that article is about the Act rather than any system. That said, if there is little to say about this treaty, it might be better discussed in the article on the Act. James500 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. A treaty between nations is a different instrument than a national statute,and normally, I would argue to keep as a separate article. However, in the case of FATCA, there are a number of bilateral agreements (currently, about a couple dozen), each modeled after one of two model agreements. See the U.S. Treasury Department's FATCA - Archive page. I could see a separate article on FACTA agreements in general, but not on any one individual one. As there is not enough content to justify a separate article at this time, best to just develop the main FATCA article. If the section on FATCA intergovernmental agreements continues to grow, it can then be split out to a separate article. TJRC (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of content in the article is not relevant. What matters is the amount of coverage. There is no point in merging this if we think it is going to be spun off again. The real question is whether this treaty satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this page is a plausible redirect and should not be deleted altogether. James500 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this wp:AfD categorized as Organisation, corporation, or product debate? It is an article about a treaty between Canada and the United States. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because there isn't a better category to put it in plus It is technically an organisation. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A treaty is not an organisation. This AfD is in the wrong category. James500 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I have added the correct category (society topics). James500 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Can someone please remove this debate from the category for "organisation, corporation, or product debates" as I am unable to do this? James500 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has been expanded since this AfD began. There are, in particular, more sources. James500 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather than deleting this article which is about a treaty, NOT about an American Act, why not expand it to include treaties other countries have signed with United States to help it implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would actually be a rename not a keep. Also it doesn't even appear to be an independent treaty rather a bilateral agreement that is covered under a long established treaty as referenced in the bilateral agreement (https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/usa_-eng.asp). Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "covered under". Simply amending an earlier treaty doesn't as far as I am aware make it part of that treaty. James500 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you go read the actual bilateral agreement you will see that the FATCA bilateral agreement is authorized by a already established treaty between Canada and the USA. "Article XXVII of the Convention Between the United States and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital done at Washington on September 26, 1980, as amended by the Protocols done

on June 14, 1983, March 28, 1984, March 17, 1995, July 29, 1997, and September 21, 2007 (the “Convention”) authorizes the exchange of information for tax purposes, including on an automatic basis;". Therefore this isn't a new treaty at all rather an agreement based on a treaty. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how authorizing "the exchange of information for tax purposes, including on an automatic basis" includes authorizing a new agreement. Nor is it clear to me why sovereign states would need authorization (from themselves no less) to enter into an agreement. James500 (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just referencing the actual bilateral agreement, it is word for word above. It is not a new treaty it is an agreement based on the provisions on an established one. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good amount of referencing coverage across multiple varied sources. Also, agree with analysis by Ottawahitech, above. — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been sourced from the following:

Merge (one paragraph) to FATCA. Almost all of the article is repeating news articles, rather than summarizing news articles. There may be a paragraph of good information; much of the lead is about other agreements. Possibly rename and repurpose to an article about all the FACTA treaties and agreements, but that would be best done by a merge to FACTA and resplit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems quiet large and notable for having its own page. OccultZone (Talk) 09:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Standard & Poor's. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S&P Municipal Bond Index

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

Article stub about one type of stock index from S&P. Not notable to be an article on its own and no real content to merge back into the unlinked, parent article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merge to Standard & Poor's or something similar. It's a good search term. No comment on notability for now, but I suspect there may be enough out there to build an article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
undecided for now as it is, it is a stub that does nothing to demonstrate notability. However, we do have a number of indexes - see Category:American_stock_market_indices and Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average for an example. There are likely hundreds or even thousands of indexes, and I don't think all are notable, but I'm not sure if we have a notability standard for stock indexes. For now leaning to redirect unless the article can be beefed up significantly. S&P has likely 1625 indexes in their portfolio; I think even listing would run afoul of WP:NOT, so we really need some way of deciding which indexes are notable enough to be covered - the DJA is an obvious one, but beyond that how do we decide?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to any of the 3 links. The article as is stands is not useful. If someone wants to expand later with sources, they are welcome to try. --Onorem (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the others; anytime you've got a problematic page with a good title, a redirect should be chosen ahead of AFD. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural_question I have posted a question on the talkpage. Thanks, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another procedural_question Why are there 6 editors spending their time in discussing the deletion of this notable article instead of helping build it? This is not helping the goal of building the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Don’t you agree? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree. We have too many articles, and not enough editors. Sometimes, deletion improves the encyclopedia - I know you may not believe this, but it's true. Incomplete/insufficient/poorly sourced/poorly maintained information is worse than none at all. Look at this search: [15] - 5 results - and compare to this one [16] with ~20,000 results - DJA is clearly worthy of an article, but I'm not convinced this one is. Not all indexes are created equal, and I haven't seen any evidence provided that this index, amongst the ~1600 indexes produced by S&P and the thousands of other indexes produced by various companies, is worthy of its own article. Articles have a cost, and one reason articles are regularly deleted is b/c people feel the cost to maintain or build that article is not worth the effort. No-one is trying to save it because no-one seems to care, and there are very few sources that discuss the importance of this index that I've found - as you can see, in the scholarly search, it is almost never referred to, nor it is regularly referred to in books except in passing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on talk page. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving deletion discussions to the talk page. What you don't realize is deleting poor articles is almost more important than writing new articles. If the quality of Wikipedia's articles goes down it affects the repetition of the website and community. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This index is important to those who follow Detroit's bankruptcy filing. XOttawahitech (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure). -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W (2014 film)

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

The article is meant to promote the subject. May I quote here that the article is apparently created by the producer ShivangSehgal/ Now blocked production house User:LegacyFilms of the movie. It was earlier under a different title W (2013 film), later moved to W (2014 film). Still releasing... However the primary concern is none of the above but WP:NF. Anup Mehra ^✈ 15:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article obeys policy in not being promotional. WP:PROMO #5 says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." Now we need to look for reliable sources that cover the film in detail to demonstrate notability. This is one source for consideration, while this is just a reprinted press release. EDIT: This is another source I found. I am not familiar enough with Indian sources to know which ones are reliable or not. If others can comment on their reliability, that would be great. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First one is a reliable source. Lets concentrate on content of the source, Legacy Film Productions' first Hindi Feature Film titled W, which was launched in the month of September 2012 is all set to hit the theatres in June 2013. It is not released till date. Now it is said by the producer of the movie in the article, that it would be releasing on 14 MARCH 2014. No recent source found on Google. Might be, it is the one alphabet title causing trouble finding sources even available. Second is a reprint of the press release, hence doesn't contribute to establish notability. third one seems reliable, it says the same, it will be releasing soon in 2013 in to Indian cinemas. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the press release mentions, W screened at the Navi Mumbai International Film Festival. We can use that term in a search to find any independent coverage. It is a little tricky to search with that one-letter title, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At one point someone removed a lot of the sourcing I'd found for the film, so I've re-added the sourcing. I'm not sure why it was removed. This isn't an argument for notability, just that there's more sourcing than there initially was. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't that someone. (page history). Thanks for re-adding sources. The article now looks good enough notable for inclusion (There was zero sources the moment I nominated the page for deletion). I guess, I should withdraw my nomination now. Thank you again. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator: I withdraw the nomination as multiple sources are made available by respected editors (There might be many more coming with dates closing to the release). I should have given myself some more time finding references and updating article rather than nominating. Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While this person is covered in "sources", there doesn't appear to be agreement on whether those sources are substantial or reliable. I assume that User:Nyttend's comment about "independent" sources is a typo and they meant "substantial", since quite clearly the local newspapers are hopefully independent of the mayor's office. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Stabler

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. References are either press releases, obits, or unrelated. reddogsix (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are 218 other Texas mayors with Wikipedia articles. The city of Bryan is larger than some of the other cities whose mayors have articles. The Stabler article has sources from Bryan-College Station Eagle and three articles on two network television stations. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the number of other mayors that have articles has no bearing on this person's notability. Other stuff exists. The "network TV coverage" are press releases from the funeral home. This all amounts to trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidently plenty of local news sources for WP:GNG ... and per User:Billy Hathorn In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in independent sources. Everything's from local publications, with nothing from independent sources from other places. Any mayor in a place with its own media will get plenty of news coverage from the local publication(s), but that's not sufficient: we need secondary sources, not simply the primary coverage from the local TV stations and newspaper. Wait until he gets coverage in books or academic journals, or until he gets discussed in news articles from other cities or from Bryan media long after his death. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am torn between poor sourcing and my experience that being a mayor is notable by default. If he was historical, referenced to few obscure books, we would keep him. I think that being modern and referenced to few local websites is little different. The question is, again, where to draw the lone? User:Billy Hathorn did a wonderful job on a very borderline (notability-wise) topi. WP:POLITICIAN states "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". The hard part is defining significant. He received coverage in local newspaper and stations, but as User:Nyttend notes, those kind of obits are to be expected. In the end I am having trouble making a choice either way; if this is deleted I strongly suggest userfication in creator's namespace. Ping with through WP:ECHO if anyone wants to reply to me directly here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Andrew (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Du Kang

(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

Unreferenced BLP that doesn't indicate notability. Laun chba ller 13:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning delete~~ Not a BLP (we're talking a supposed legendary figure in ancient China) but the lack of references is a problem, and it isn't consonant with the main article Chinese alcoholic beverages. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep in light of comments below. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad form nomination. Did the nominator read the article? This is not a BLP, it's about a figure in Chinese mythology. You might as well delete Thor for being a BLP lacking references. Shii (tock) 14:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thor has 58 references...--Laun chba ller 14:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of references on the Chinese, Vietnamese, Polish, and French versions of this article. Why didn't you look at those before trying to delete this "living person"? Shii (tock) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I go into reflex mode when I see an unreferenced biography.--Laun chba ller 15:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep. Here is a solid English-language source for Du Kang (also called Shao Kang) as a legendary founder of the Chinese liquor trade: Zhengping Li, Chinese Wine (Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 14ff. GBooks appears to have multiple additional sources consistent with this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
- Peter Lovrick; Wang-Ngai Siu (1 January 2011). Chinese Opera: Images and Stories. UBC Press. pp. 155–. ISBN 978-0-7748-4445-1.
- Jian Chen; Yang Zhu (23 November 2013). Solid State Fermentation for Foods and Beverages. CRC Press. pp. 102–. ISBN 978-1-4398-4496-0.
- Yinke Deng (3 March 2011). Ancient Chinese Inventions. Cambridge University Press. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-0-521-18692-6.
- Dwight B. Heath (1 January 1995). International Handbook on Alcohol and Culture. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-0-313-25234-1.

Etc. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and close. Several of the sources above demonstrate that this topic passes WP:N, and more are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (Non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruinz Ason

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

Not notable. Airplay falls short of rotation. Releases not on an important label. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources but none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about Ason. Reposting a video on a website is not independent coverage. The bio hosted on BBC is a Wikipedia mirror. SBTV and rightchordmusic do not have significant coverage. The best is probably freshonthenet but it's a blog and is only a paragraph. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agree with nomination. delete --Ysangkok (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 14:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Doss

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. No significant roles in notable productions. Prod was removed with the dubious claim she has "mid-importance role in the upcoming film Captain America: The Winter Soldier". The imdb page used to support this statement does not list Doss at all, let alone for any "mid-importance" part. The claim of activism appears to be original research. It lists a 26 year old student Amanda Catherine Doss with no way of knowing if it's producer, actress, filmmaker Cat Doss. Even if those two things were supported by a reliable source they would not make her notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What else are you looking for? The person's had quite a few film roles and is a reporter. Clearly people are looking for information about her since the page has been visited over 600 times in the past 90 days: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Cat_Doss. Its notable and people are looking for this information. How exactly would they be serviced by deleting the page? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What more am I looking for? Notability, verifiability, no original research. Just being in a few films does not make her notable. Just being a reporter is just someone doing a job, nothing notable there either. 600 views is not many, nothing special there (and how many of them are from you). Almost a third appear to be on the first day when the page was under construction, with you and new page patrollers looking at the page for construction reasons, not to look for info about her. Take them out and the figures are even more ordinary. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 05:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless sources meeting WP:BASIC are found, I was unsuccessful myself (and tried HIghbeam in addition to the usual suspects.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Circle of Magic. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Vedris IV

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

Not a significant enough subject to have a stand-alone article. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Circle of Magic There's a list of characters already which doesn't mention the duke, and there's barely more material here than there is for each of the others. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wandera

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

Even the FT article is just a press release -- n oactual accomplishments DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 12:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split My Taxi

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to be limited to the Boston University Campus. Despite the published article based probably on local interest and their press releases, not notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small local company. It was mentioned in the Boston Globe but still I am really questioning the notability. I must add its a nice idea behind the company. Let it grow abit. Let it add more towns and it will get notability. Untill then I vote delete.Stepojevac (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dealply

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

Prod was disputed. No non-trivial third party RS to support WP:CORP notability. This source (a non-notable marketing site) devotes about a sentence to Dealply. This source only mentions Dealply's parent company, devoting a paragraph to it. This one appears to be a press release, and the remaining ones simply ID Dealply as having been picked up by anti-malware software. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclosure: I am the article's creator. Replaced press release with a reliable source and updated information based on source change. Fact remains that with millions of users, the company is a notable one. Continuing to find and addmore reliable sources regarding notability. Article does not warrant deletion. Ymd2004 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link you added is just a "success story" from another non-notable company that sold something to Dealply. That hardly qualifies under WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a notable topic, but the topic here is privacy-invasive browser toolbars, not Dealply specifically. I'd welcome a broad article on such, but this product is a footnote or section, not an article. No objection to userfying it as a starting point for such a broadened article though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment Good point, Andy; alternatively, that topic could easily be expanded in Browser toolbar. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep browser toolbar for those (good or bad) that are literally toolbars in browsers. The privacy-invasive aspect is independently notable and it can apply to many things other than toolbars: from Comet Cursor to Angry Birds. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 12:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a lot of internet discussion about how to remove this software but I'm unable to find any reliable sources. ~KvnG 17:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources provided are incidental mentions, not RS, or are associated with the company. A search did not turn up any significant RS references.Dialectric (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Constitutionalists

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

Minor organisation that never met WP:ORG or WP:GNG and that was dissolved last year, see [17] - no chapters were ever actually created. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support never notable NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything about this organisation, and all the Google hits seem to be irrelevant (e.g. people who are young and styled "constitutionalists" - whatever that means - but show no signs of being affiliated to the Constitution Party). Note that the Georgian Young Constitutionalists are from the republic in the Caucasus, not the US state. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails relevant notability criteria, as described by Dougweller in his nomination. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MastCell. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CLOSE (userfied during edit conflict). Cindy(talk) 11:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niotso - A Game Engine Recreation

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

Non-notable software, only in the planning stages, nearly no Google hits (in Verbatim mode, to avoid instances of "niot so"). Also, the writer is using Wikipedia to communicate directly to readers in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. (See the original version, written in the first person plural before I had PRODded the article.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SIMILE Timeline

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

Software that doesn't seem to be notable. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NSOFT. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 10:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 10:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced software article of unclear notability, tagged for notability since 2010. A search shows developers' sites and a few blog entries, but did not turn up any significant RS references.Dialectric (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I'm unable to find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow close as delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian (Time Lord)

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

I can't find any sources which suggest that this character is real, though I may just be looking in the wrong place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might this be the same person as Black Guardian or White Guardian? The Tardis Wikia actually lists 6 guardians[18]. Regardless, it doesn't seem a notable figure (despite the difficulty of googling beyond The Guardian newspaper's considerable Who coverage). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My resident Dr. Who expert advises me that the Guardians aren't Time Lords, and in the absence of any verification, this article should go. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or even Speedy Delete. I'm fairly confident that this is a hoax – the phrase "Grand High Gallifreyan credits" turns up zero Google hits (except for this article), and I think that the part about Barcelona is some kind of in-joke. To my knowledge, no Doctor Who character by this name has ever been created. A look at some of the page creator's other contributions only re-inforces this opinion. Super Mario Man 16:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Genuine hoax. Creator has just been permablocked. Poeticbent talk 18:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete. Created by now blocked user, totally unreferenced so probably a hoax as said by others. Martin451 22:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a Hoax! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hill (photographer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. More like a resume. Self-published references. The fact that he has had some photographs published does not make him notable. Was previously deleted at WP:AFD, but recreated. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote last time around (5 January 2009) -- Hill seems to be no more than one in tens of thousands of rock photographers. He's young; he may go far. If/when he goes significantly further (solo exhibitions, books noted for the photographer as well as the subject matter, critical commentary), he can get an article; till then, 'fraid not. Delete. -- still seems apposite. But I'm open to evidence-based persuasion to the contrary. If this is deleted, then please also salt: a newly notable Peter Hill could of course still get an article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article shows no sign of notability as demonstrated by reliable, disinterested, sources; nor does it show any indication of notability even with unsourced claims. -Lopifalko (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Ottoman Armenian casualties. Anything worthwhile can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian casualties of deportations

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

This article has a serious number of issues. It has been tagged as original research and disputed material for over 6 years now. But more importantly, this is a classic case of WP:FORK. All of this content can be merged in the Armenian Genocide article if need be. As far as I can see, much of the information found in this article is on that page anyhow. Other pages include Ottoman Armenian casualties and Armenian Genocide survivors, which are almost the same topic and have almost the same information. All these may need to be merged or deleted. I think we should just focus with this article for now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ottoman Armenian casualties, since they discuss nearly the same topics.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with or Redirect to Ottoman Armenian casualties. The article is disputed and has original research, and is almost a duplicate of the much better Ottoman Armenian casualties article. What little can be used can be merged. Ithinkicahn (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any useful information here. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable information here.--68.119.138.205 (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The article Armenian genocide is already extremely long and already has a number of sub ("main") articles. Ottoman Armenian casualties is covering much the same ground, but with fewer statistics. This is a much debated subject, so that I doubt we are dealing with WP:OR, though I have no doubt that the conclusions are likely to be much disputed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 05:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph G. Peterson

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:NAUTHOR. PROD declined by article creator. I don't see any indication that he meets any of the Creative Professional guidelines. Safiel (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it seems to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:NAUTHOR. Also looks like it may be a WP:SPA that set this up. BLP not notable at this stage. BerkeleyLaw1979 —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete (by the creator of the article) I'm only using a single user account because I infrequently edit Wikipedia and don't see a need to keep a single voice on it. I had an earlier account that I've been unable to retrieve my password from, but it's immaterial to me. Furthermore, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA suggests, "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits." Also, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the difference between this article and the one on "Ernest Hill (author)", or, I strongly suspect, hundreds of others I could find if I had the time. Finally, no, I am not Joseph G. Peterson, nor associated with his publishers. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidbit9 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just proposed deletion of the Ernest Hill article for pretty much the same reason that I took this one to AfD for. In any event, refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If I had time to run around to search and delete articles of insignificant people of any profession I would. But there are only so many hours in a day and so there are likely to be plenty of articles on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't exist. Safiel (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beautiful Piece was reviewed in Prairie Schooner[19], Chicago Sun-Times[20], Illinois Times[21], Chicago Now[22]; Inside the Whale was reviewed in Publishers Weekly.[23] Right now I'm not sure if all of those are good sources (there's also a blogcritics.org review but I think they take anybody?). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I overhauled this article to include review coverage and get rid of a lot of the irrelevant outlinks. One of Peterson's novels has been cited as an example of nonlinear narrative. Another has entered the literature as an exemplar of post-recession fiction.Dblobaum (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and because the claim of "cited as an example of nonlinear narrative" applies to almost anything written after Joyce's Ulysses that isn't trade fiction and doesn't make this guy's work special. Coverage required with WP:BKCRIT would make his work special.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BKCRIT is not relevant. No one is suggesting an article for a book. The article in question is for an author of a body of work, which work has been reviewed in significant places and has been discussed in the critical literature.Dblobaum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four book reviews (I just added another) is enough for WP:NAUTHOR #1, multiple reviews. The Delete voters seem to be ignoring the book reviews which is how we usually determine notability of authors. -- GreenC 16:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Green's sources apparently show basic notability. That they are not in the article yet does not mean the subject is not notable (see WP:N, particularly #Article content does not determine notability) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Daoud

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

Unsourced BLP about an apparently non-notable playwright, and I could not find any reliable sources that would indicate notability. Jinkinson talk to me 23:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete. No independent sources. Bayna Ana wa Ana Hya is by the same creator so this is a walled garden. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Jean-David is Lebanese and his Arabic name is جان داوود which translates as "Jean-David". Apears to be an important playwright working at the national level but also a senior figure who chairs judges panels, directed a literary festival, keynote speaker. Arabic that establish WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources):

-- GreenC 03:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE unless this article was restructured into well-sourced encyclopaedic prose quickly. Wikipedia is not the place for posting a resume or curriculum vitae--otherwise I'd suggest monster.com or linkedin to the article's creator if that was his/her intent.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the article if it closes Keep using the multiple reliable sources listed above per WP:GNG. AfD is a topic-level discussion not content-level. -- GreenC 01:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC per several of the news sources listed above by User:Green Cardamom. The article needs a lot of work, and User:Green Cardamom has stated they will work to improve it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Thakur

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

References provided do not support the claims of notability made in the article. Not clear how this might meet WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no prominent third references with "wide coverage" found. Few mentions in small local news items. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_February_18 I have deleted the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shamar Stephen

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

Fails WP:GNG. Late round NFL draft prospect that lacks any sort of notability right now. Yankees10 23:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only news coverage I can find are basic statistics and nothing more. Does not pat WP:GNG or any other notability standard I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be userfied upon request. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 05:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Fragel

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON hasn't played in the NFL. Fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear fail on WP:NGRIDIRON having not played professionally. Checking sources, I find none that seem to pass WP:GNG. Without playing professionally, we need to judge notability on his college career. Typically, offensive collegiate linemen do not generate enough press to pass and I believe this is the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Since the guy's on the practise squad, could this be incubated instead of being deleted? Of course I agree that he doesn't currently warrant an article, but that's not the only thing to consider. Unless I misunderstand something, this guy would have a better-than-average chance of playing in the NFL; it would seem wasteful to delete the article entirely if we could simply wait for the possibility of him gaining WP:ATHLETE notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with userfy if anyone wants to take custody of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Userfy is OK with me, too.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 slakr^\ talk / 09:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr William Guild Mortification

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

This article is just the primary document, no history, no discussion, just a transcript of the document.

It should be deleted here and moved to wikiquote. ColonelHenry (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to have it moved to wikiquote. I am not familiar with this resource. The purpose of the entry - which I "translated" from a document dated 1825, which itself is a copy from the original MS in Latin from 1633, is to allow various other articles to reference important wording for the residents of the hospital in 1633. If wikiquote is the right place and it can be referenced , e.g. seeDr Guild Mortification etc.. for a wikipedia article - then OK.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikisource would be the best place for this, not Wikiquote. See Wikipedia:Wikisource for how to copy to Wikisource, and how to reference it. --Vclaw (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's try another "location" It is rather confusing. All I want to do is 1 provide a series of wiki articles for others to read 2 provide detailed sources/ references so that others can evaluate the wiki articles.

I don't find time to enter into interesting discussions about process. My apologies. Just indicate where the material that I teanscribed might be located AND suggest how readers might easily link from the wiki article to the "evidence" Any help welcome Ray

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6/2/14 There is a general principle involved here. As I understand Wikipedia, the entries should contain sufficient information for readers to cross-reference and corroborate views/ facts/ etc. Together with the "open" system of moderation and editing this gives a reasonably good quality check on the content of entries. In the case of historical events/ places/ movements there are many original documents dating from medieval times. In one entry I have made Bishop Dunbar's Hospital I have the original Ms from James V (1531) giving authority to the establishment of the Hospital AND most importantly laying down the nature of the institution IN THE WORDING and SENTIMENTS of the day. The Dr Guild Mortification (1633) is a similar situation - except that so far I have been unable to trace the original MS. The Wikiquote entry is my “translation” of an document from 1825 which itself is probably a translation ( from the 17th C Scots). There are many other important contemporary or near contemporary documents that would be useful for readers of general entries to read in full. I think this is the heart of the issue. How should Wikipedia present documents (out of copyright etc etc) to allow readers corroborate / check claims made in entries? Ray Oaks

Documents can be uploaded on WikiSource. Wikipedia is not for original documents, or for original research using old documents; a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people write about original documents. Note that documents on WikiSource aren't normally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, but they can be referenced or linked to from Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confer _ 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Marshall (architect)

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

Architect who has served on Memphis City Council for over 20 years. My guess is that the article was written primarily by someone close to source, and I am not certain as to whether this meets notability guidelines Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Having your name on a lot of architectural projects does not make one notable. The mentions in the press are almost all about the buildings. There is little biographical content in the press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE #3 and #4 apply to architects: if the person has played a major role in designing significant or well-known buildings, they are (generally) notable. Whether this is the case here, I'm less sure, and the person's buildings don't seem to have attracted Wikipedia articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Also problems with promotional writing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Dying

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

Does not meet WP:NOTFILM. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, no reliable sources. Royal broil 02:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I had to really, really look but I did find some coverage. Some of it's local, but it's over a fairly wide period of time. There is a college paper, but the college is not the same one as the one Jacobs' students attended. There's enough here to warrant a weak keep for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough significant secondary coverage to meet our guidelines. Fwiw, WP:LOCAL is an essay that I don't agree with. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John William Ward (manager)

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

Can't see any grounds for notability here. Positions held to date are not considered inherently notable Flaming Ferrari (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delete. Seems to be very marginal. No 3rd party refs; link to Wiki Debrett is meaningless.Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is listed in Who's Who (UK) (Subscription required) and Debrett's People of Today as "Development Advisor to Welsh National Opera since 2003", however I am still not convinced as to whether he is independently notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was general secretary of the First Division Association, an important British trade union. That alone qualifies him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's been judged to be notable by both Who's Who and Debrett's (which btw, isn't wiki/user-generated content). I say both of these are probably better at judging notability than Wikipedians per WP:OTHERENCYCLOPEDIAS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who's Who and Debrett's list a lot of people who do not meet wikipedia notability criteria, such as this former AFD. It's wrong to assume that every QC, headteacher, and company director listed in these publications should also warrent inclusion here. --Flaming Ferrari (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous article was quite scandalously wrongly deleted - there is previous precedence that headmasters of British public schools are inherently notable. Meanwhile, Who's Who/Debrett's are "establishment" publications, but that's good because we are supposed to be WP:MAINSTREAM and not just a list of all professional footballers. As stated, these are professionals whose job it is to identify those in society who are of importance. Some Wikipedians are cack-handed amateurs. I think I know who's best to judge. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like the article's was either copied to or from informationreach John, on the same site is a page listing FDA personnel, could be used as ref is article is kept, informationreach fda. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It definitely looks as if the "delete" votes are factually confused. Why are we going to tell Who's Who that we know better than they who the important, coverage-worthy people are? They and Debrett's provide substantial coverage of important people; they are reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and their reputations are longstanding: Who's Who has published since the early Victoria era, and Debrett's has been established for more than a quarter-millennium. They're not just taking random Joe Bloggs off the street: they're professionals who are picking leading members of society. As noted at the other AFD, some factual stuff is submitted, but the problem with subject-submitted content is typically that it's published without review. This is completely different, as the editors review submitted content and news to ensure that the biographies remain up-to-date and accurate. See here; while content is partially autobiographical, it's independently researched in order to maintain reliability. Again, why would we tell the editors of these publications, established reference works for several lives of men, that we know better than they who the notable people are? Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation when notability is established. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David King (defensive end)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, hasn't played in the NFL. Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. There is a large amount of routine coverage of the fact that he was drafted but this doesn't address him in significant detail. Hack (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little (if any) is in the news on his college career--I found none but my search was not exauhstive. Being drafted in the NFL is better than I've ever done, but it's not enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS, and every other notability guideline I can think of. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Article can certainly be recreated if he makes it to the active roster and plays in a regular season game. Gong show 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime Ice Cream

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

Advertising. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I searched I found mention of a brand by the same name that is sold by Trader Joe's, but isn't the same thing as this brand. Even if it was, the coverage wasn't in anything we'd consider to be a RS. There's nothing out there to show that this brand is ultimately notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage. Reads as copy-pasted from company promotion. Fails WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just looked at it from a fresh view and it looks advertising. Basically, this is WP:PROMO Titus Fox 16:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and is advertising. ///EuroCarGT 21:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connoisseur's Bakery

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable / fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Corporate Headquarters

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

essentially promotional article for business service company. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable / fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ezbob

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

Appears to be promotional. Daily Mail is not a reliable source. No substantial coverage. Not WP:FUTUREPROOF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2014 - The creator of this page has removed the 'Daily Mail' citation since it is marked as an unreliable source above. This page was not created for a promotional end, but as an informational guide for the growing number of readers inquiring about the process of online lending. There are other Wikipedia pages of its like: iwoca and kabbage for example. The creator of this page wishes to respect the wikipedia guidelines and will edit the page as needed, as well as add relevant citations. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asafbraverman (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 January 2014 (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) 00:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Biatec Award

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

I find this of very low notability, as does seem the rest of the world. The rewards have been given to e.g. George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac, but that has apparently not been met by world news coverage (nor is it of interest to Wikipedia to link from these articles to this article). This appears to be the result of paid editing, and not necessarily because this is an article that meets our inclusion standards. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2014 (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) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Due to lack of RS outside of Slovakia. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Beyond is Beyond Records

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

Non-notable record company lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2014 (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) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable microstub. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tug (agency)

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

Not notable despite the same awards that everyone in that industry has. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2014 (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) 00:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

industry awards are insignificant and this company remains non-notable. delete --Ysangkok (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collective (digital creative agency)

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

Advertising and not notable despite some awards like they all have. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very obscure company with no references to establish notability and no real claim to notability either. N4 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. notability not established. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aegis Group. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carat UK

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Aegis Media~~ Aegis Group per the article's proposed merge tag. Keep redirect to Aegis Group. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aegis Group. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Hardwicke Solicitors

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

One news story relating to Facebook, rest of sources seem weak. Firm not notable. This is an advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes my standards. This firm is over 100 years old, and if true and can be verified, their service by Facebook would be groundbreaking. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep – The article doesn't have a promotional tone, and it's likely that more pre-internet print sources are available, since the company was established in 1889. Coverage exists in The London Gazette. Additional sources available online include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Law firm of 100+ years old has unusual longevity; that's practically per se notable for larger firms. --Lquilter (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources. The Telegraph story is OK but the others mean nothing. Two are stories in local newspapers to the firm that are clearly based on press releases issued by the firm about somebody joining and staff doing some charity work. Every local newspaper is full of this stuff, they have to fill the pages with something. The reference to the London Gazette is also no good because that is an official government publication that exists precisely so that legal firms and the like can place notices about their clients, e.g. bankrupcy etc. None of these, apart from the Telegraph, is real journalism about the firm and lists like this in the deletion debate create a misleading impression for other editors about the level of notice that the subject has really had. Philafrenzy (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kemp Little

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

Not notable. Just another firm of lawyers. Coverage seems to be mainly about appointments. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - currently, there are so few facts in the stub as to render it useless for a discussion. The wording is very spammy. I can't figure whether it passes my standards, the coporate guidelines, or general notability. My mind is open, as is this discussion. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leathes Prior

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

Just another firm of lawyers. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - assuming that everything can be verified by reliable sources, this passes my standards. However, it needs to be re-written with actual footnotes. No court of appeals would accept this paucity of authority if this were an appellate brief. Likewise, articles need citations to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus Solicitors

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

Not notable. Coverage is about appointments and who they have acted for rather than the firm itself which does not seem distinctive. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for law firms as being too new, new small, and too obscure. Probably also fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marks & Clerk

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

Old but not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A large multinational law firm in existence for over 125 years. Added several refs. More are readily available, so meets WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a large firm. It has over a dozen offices, has over a hundred attorneys, and is over a hundred years old; this passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollits LLP

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

Advertising and not notable. Nothing distinctive about this law firm. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with 60 attorneys, and being over 150 years old, this passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of a law firm shouldn't be automatic nor any different from other companies. I've looked for useful sources and there are none that establish sufficient notability to meet WP:CORP. This was the best I could find. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added cite. It would be odd if a 170+ year old firm didn't have a large number of non-web cites available. Has enough cites currently in order to not be deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As in WP:MUSTBESOURCES? The cite you added doesn't demonstrate notability, and those already cited are trivial mentions in low-quality sources. I'm cutting the blatantly promotional content about charity events (which companies don't do this?). SmartSE (talk)
  - The firm has a separate charity law section, so their support of charities might be notable. I added more cites supporting some of the listed law sections and a little of the history. My point was that the available print references could only be found by someone willing to dig into archives of 1800s and 1900s newspapers, books, etc. Per WP:NTEMP, if the firm would have passed WP:GNG during any one of the 170+ years, then it passes WP:GNG today. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep – but only if all unreferenced stuff (which is virtually everything and still with much promo) and living non-notable people are removed, which would reduce it to a short stub. I concur with SmartSE's WP:MUSTBESOURCES here, which would apply to all statements in the article. In reply to Bearian's "being over 150 years old" (above), the law firm example given through a nav-through provides verified reliable evidence for all statements – this article doesn't. The problem with articles such as this, with few to no sources to prove notability in Wikipedia terms, is that if it is kept, a whole load more promo and uncited stuff will ride in on its saddle. I have removed the wikilink to the wrong Joseph Kaye – cricketer, not builder. Acabashi (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which currently living people are you referring to? It is standard practice to include the top level people in the Infobox especially if properly cited as done here. Hoovers is explicitly noted as a suitable source by WP:LISTED.VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confer _ 05:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Alameel

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

Does not meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Politically active dentist from Texas who has run for (and lost at the primary level) one House of Representatives seat, and is now running for (at the primary level so far) the Texas Senate seat in 2014. Local coverage related to his political bid only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: he's notable for his large political donations, business activities, and political candidacies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orser67 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, routine coverage only, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014. This is a usual outcome for candidates running for a national legislature. Enos733 (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:POLITICIAN, only trivial coverage of a non-notable candidate for office. Redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2014. Tiller54 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staub (cookware)

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

Stub article for a product with little notability on its own, part of a larger company. Did a redirect to the larger company but it was reverted. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, substub that fails Wikipedia:Notability (products). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable and influential cookware line used by some of France's most famous chefs (Paul Bocuse for example). Notability does not expire, and even if production of the line has ceased, it is still a notable subject. Sources include articles such as this one in New YOrk Magazine. Many more sources in French. And the company's website is helpful as well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include: [24], [25] (in French), [26], [27], [28], [29]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus for deletion. If the article should be redirected, that should be discussed on its talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Heat F.C.

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

Non-notable sports team. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Hack (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are runners up in the F-League in 2012 and have a number of futsalroos players in their side. The very fact that they play at the highest level of futsal in Australia should be notable in itself. The article perhaps needs improvement but not deletion.Simione001 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no in-depth coverage of this club at all in reliable sources. Searches for this club yielded the following result - Fairfax News Store - nil; Factiva - two results mentioning that particular players play for this club; Ebsco Australia - one result showing the club in a fixture list; Google News - nil. National level clubs in outdoor football are usually given a free pass because they usually have had serious coverage but this does not apply to futsal clubs. Hack (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed. Even a look at the club's own web page reveals a complete lack of any in-depth information. It's more of a holding page. Except, of course, for some video clips which reveal a complete absence of any spectators. Using the "competes at the highest level of a national league" could equally well be used to justify inclusion of tiddlywinks clubs or computer gamers. H6PAYH (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Delete Futsal has no visibility here in Australia and I had not even heard of it until seeing this article for deletion. The club itself was founded only in 2012 so has hardly had time to become notable. I would suggest there is no need for individual Australian futsal clubs to have Wikipedia pages unless/until the sport gets some level of independent coverage. H6PAYH (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise that there are degrees of strength in regards to deletion. Either delete or not.Simione001 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever H6PAYH (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in the top division of their sport in their country - article needs improving/expanding, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to F-League. The fact that a team plays at the "highest level" (which apparently incorporates teams from only three of Australia's eight states and territories, but perhaps that's beside the point) of a particular sport in a particular country doesn't mean squat if that particular sport has very little presence or generates very little attention in that particular country, as is the case with futsal in Australia. Cricket probably has some presence in Kyrgyzstan, but that doesn't mean the local teams suddenly get Wikipedia articles. The search term "East Coast Heat" returns zero hits on Google News, which can hardly be said to constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". However, "East Coast Heat" is probably a plausible search term, so we might as redirect to the league page – our readers can basically gain the same amount of information from the list of teams which already exists there. IgnorantArmies 13:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS, team is playing in top level league in its country, so passes WP:FOOTYN. Concede there are potential GNG issues here though, but want to see the article expanded if possible, as per current consensus at WP:FOOTY on clubs. Fenix down (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)`[reply]

Comment. This is not a football club, this is a futsal club. A futsal club that blatantly fails WP:GNG, which is a guideline, unlike WP:FOOTYN which is an essay. Hack (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't go that far. Futsal and football are very similar. Futsal is a variant of association football (soccer).Simione001 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My point is that WP:FOOTYN is intended for outdoor football and reflects the fact that national-level clubs in that form of football almost universally get enough coverage to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' - FOOTYN makes no such claim to ONLY be concerned with 11-a-side. Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing about semantics. How exactly does this club meet WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have agreed that the article needs improving.Simione001 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguing that futsal is inherently the same as football rather knocks a hole in the argument that this club plays in the top league. The top football league in Australia is the A League - this is beyond dispute. By arguing to consider futsal and football using the same criteria, teams playing variants of football in leagues other than the A League would not be playing in the top league. H6PAYH (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody said it was the same, it's a variation of assocaition football. Futsal clubs are not eligible to play in the a-league for that reason lol.Simione001 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But your argument is that futsal is a variation of football, therefore being successful at futsal should be seen as equivalent to being successful at football. This is simply not the case. A futsal club is not notable because futsal is not notable. It receives no coverage; it does not even seem to generate its own web presence. It is a pastime that is probably very enjoyable, but it is not commercial, outward-facing or notable in any way. Most people have never heard of futsal whcih might justify a Wikipedia page to explain what futsal is, but it makes it impossible to argue that teams participating in futsal are notable. In this case, you've got a team that was founded less than two years ago and zero public recognition. I can see only one person arguing for the retention of the page - makes me wonder whether it is being considered with a neutral point of view. H6PAYH (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to F-League, and that's being generous. Futsal is not a widely known sport in Australia, and there is almost zero coverage of this team to establish notability and verifiability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Keep. Clearly notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Blood (band)

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

For some reason, these guys don't seem notable enough per the notability guidelines (especially for musicians and performers)...no "significant coverage". A mention on the Guardian's music blog is cool, but so are other not-really-notable garage bands they've reviewed on the blog that never went anywhere. I'll let AfD sort it out. ColonelHenry (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed - this is not a notable band with independent coverage. H6PAYH (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this a bit baffling. One might expect a search for "Royal Blood" to get a lot of false positives, but the first 3 pages of a Google seatch and the first page of GNews found all these: The Guardian, BBC, The Independent, NME, XfM, This Is Fake DIY, MTV. There's plenty of coverage around, easily sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Dig a bit deeper and there's a Channel 4 TV show, another TIFDIY article, The Argus, and a 2 page feature in NME from the 11 January issue. --Michig (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon a review of the sources posted by User:Michig, this group passes WP:BAND point #1 and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These guys are getting good enough coverage in the UK press right now. I've stuck a few more of the more notable sources into the article as references. This ought to be a fairly straight-forward keep-decision. Pasicles (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the article does need some developing, the subject is notable as per WP:BAND. I agree with the users above that there is considerable inclusion of the band in independent sources that can be used for verification. N4 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Azimi Dam

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

Small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability since April 2010; however, no improvements were made for establishing notability. No English search results, except different wikies based on this page. There may be more deep coverage in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a hydroelectric generation plant and dam, notability can be assumed; and sources are very likely to be found in Farsi. Systemic bias may be an issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every hydroplant and dam is notable, particularly in the case of micro- and small hydro projects. You can't just asume a notability of every micro- and small scale project. If there are sources satisfying WP:GNG, the article should be kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted. During almost four years nobody has provided any reliable third party source providing a significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. Just mentioning the name of the dam by sources is not enough for WP:GNG. As for Systemic bias, it may be an issue, of course, but unlikely. During the last four years, members of WP:DAMS, particularly user:NortyNort has expanded all similar stubs created by the same author. Remained only stubs where no sources available. There is also no article in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Given the growth trend for renewable energy plants, notability cannot be simply assumed, or else things would quickly get out of hand. Johnfos (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of power stations in Iran or just delete. I did a similar AfD three years ago on a plethora of planned dams in Iran. Hard to find information on these and it is a small hydroelectric plant. I have worked on many of these articles and expanded what I could. If we don't delete or redirect it will be four more years!... of stub status...--NortyNort (Holla) 14:10, 25 January 2014 (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) 05:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Flight: Journey to Mother Moon

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for albums and musical works, album is not released (per WP:CRYSTAL). ColonelHenry (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean it doesnt meet notability guidlines, the actual artist has confirmed the release of the album, that it actually exists, and numerous sites have confirmed it. The official tweet of the artist is not enough proof of that?. User:Alexandros (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Has received enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NALBUMS and not be violating WP:CRYSTAL. However, the article does need to be expanded. STATic message me! 07:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not affected by WP:CRYSTAL as it's existence is verified by numerous independent secondary sources. The album is notable as per WP:NALBUMS and will only become more notable after it's release. N4 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Koala15 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Didn't Mean to be Kevin

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

Non-notable novel. There appear to be no professional reviews, and the article cites nothing but blogs and amazon reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or redirect to Caleb_J._Ross#Bibliography~~ ~~if his article survives deletion.~~ I can't find any coverage for this book in RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to just delete. I couldn't find anything to show notability for the author either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability so far. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even in worldcat, which is a minimum standard. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christine D'Clario

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

Notability per WP:MUSBIO not supported by any sources. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No evidence of notability. Awards appear to be non-notable.reddogsix (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established.LM2000 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/christine-dclario-mn0002688963 Multiple albums on an important Christian worship music label (Integrity Music) clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO number five. Nothing at http://jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/default.asp?STARTLETTER=C but she appears to be primarily focused on the Latino market. Definitely needs to be cleaned. Ping me if the article survives (as it should) and either I or someone from the Christian music project will help with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2014 (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) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish the notability of this subject. Folgertat (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant claims of notability, awards mentioned dont establish notability either. RadioFan (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Muir

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

seems like very less or no sign of notability. Fails to satisfy WP:PEOPLE. No reliable independent reference is there. Mr RD 18:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to Esalen per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as nominated was spammy, but I found sources in commercial databases that assert notability: "leaders in the neotantra movement", "at the forefront of a movement", "probably the best known teachers of Western Tantra", "described as the grandparents of the modern tantra movement". Integrated some into the article and deleted a lot of promo stuff. -- GreenC 06:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donut Diner

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

Unremarkable coffee/doughnut shop chain; no independent sources; fails WP:CORP. Jinkinson talk to me 21:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found coverage in a reliable independent source. Covered as part of the history of Canada's donut trade. Not the most earth shaking subject, but worth including. Some of their outlets remain in business. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delte per WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV. Reference cited gives the chain mention in just one sentence.Blue Riband► 13:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. It is discussed on 4 different pages of that source including some significant coverage of the company's founding, history, number of stores, region of operations, discussion of the donut reailing environment when it was esablished and competitive pressures that developed over time. Donuts are a fairly big deal in Canada. And that's just the coverage from one source. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple mentions within a single source does not make WP:SIGCOV. If there is more than "just the coverage from one source" it should not present a problem to include those sources to support the chain's notability. Blue Riband► 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few odd sources is all I could find. Probably need someone with access to Canadian databases.

Hamilton Spectator (2/05/2002). "Police Charge Coffee Shop Mooner". Quote: "A woman who mooned customers in a Hamilton [Donut Diner] coffee shop and shouted abuse at them Tuesday morning has been charged with creating a disturbance." (Database: EBSCO)
Toronto Star (06/16/2004) "Now this is good toast". Quote: "Toast enthusiasts are a strange breed. Like the Connecticut woman who posted "Donut Diner: The Most Delicious Toast In The Universe" on Epinions.com about her favourite highway-side shop near Brantford, Ont. This is, bar none, the most surreal review I have read on my home province," one reader groused." (Database: EBSCO)
Hamilton Spectator (12/16/2009). "Store Good For What Ails". Quote: "And at the drive-thru window left over from the Donut Diner that used to occupy this space, he serves $2 bowls of soup, his grandma's recipe." (Database: EBSCO)

-- GreenC 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough commentary in sourcing exists. By being a defunct franchise, the article is not promoting anything, and is to be less harshly judged under WP:CORP. Historical topics get more leeway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one source gives the chain one sentence on two pages and a passing mention on the third. Couldn't find any significant sources. "Major competitor" to Tim Hortons? I think not. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Regarding potential for a merge, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films

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

The sources for tollywood boxoffice are often and almost always unreliable....I don't think this article will ever be accurate and accountable..... ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 08:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

South Indian cinema never crossed 100 crore mark

Dookudu touched 1 Billion mark

Attarintiki Daredi is highest grossing Telugu film

Eega collects 125 crore

Gabbar Singh collects 1.5 billion

From the above, you can see that Attarintiki Daredi is universally accepted as the highest grossing telugu film by collecting ~80 crore. But other sources including TOI, India Today show other movies grossing as much as 1.5 billion. When the most reliable sources like TOI become so unreliable, don't expect other sources to be better with some reporting box office of Nayak and other movies in excess of 190 crore! This list will never be complete so I hereby propose to delete it and clear the mess. See the page history and you will realize that the fans of Mahesh Babu and Pawan Kalyan are already fighting for the first place... Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 08:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,

South Indian Cinema never cross 100 crore mark is true in case of share collections which is considered everywhere. And Attarintiki Daredi share collections are ~ 80 crores is also true but gross collections may be 150+ crores. Know clearly what showed in TOI and India Today, then show proofs. If we maintain with proper references we can give real information. So if you can, help to improve the article. Merging results List of highest-grossing Indian films appears like List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films . Phani M (talk)

merge any reliably sourced content into List of highest-grossing Indian films. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Appears to be a useful article.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Preetikapoor0:, you may not know this, but WP:ITSUSEFUL is one of the positions that carries no weight in a deletion discussion. Do you have any other reason? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator. Anup Mehra ^✈ 10:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of highest-grossing Indian films with reliable source --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 13:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Tollywood? Oh God, Don't Make Me Laugh! Not trying to be offensive in Any way, shape or form but I had never heard of Tollywood before checking the AFD list and really, it should just be merged with TRPoD's Suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titusfox (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Titusfox, To make others know about tollywood, the article is here. Tollywood has its own recognization which produces more films than bollywood from many years Phani M (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Gratton

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

Promotional article on non-notable person. Article on this person previosly deleted: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah-Jayne Gratton. I'd speedy this, but being unable to view original article am not sure it meets the strict criteria. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a considerable improvement over the deleted article. It's no longer a promotional piece as suggested and has been deemed to be within the scope of WikiProject Biography, as indicated on the article's talk page. {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the new article is significantly better than the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbaniston (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAbove added by article creator, a SPA. Article has unfounded claims and relies on flaky sources.TheLongTone (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would regard Cambridge Business magazine, In Spire magazine and Glyndŵr University as credible secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbaniston (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might. The university I'll buy: it's used to support the claim of an MBA. The Cambridge Business magazine is a useless cite, since the url just dumps you at the head of a 100plus page pdf document. As to the last, I beg to differ.TheLongTone (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to directly link to the article in Cambridge Business magazine. The article is on page 69? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 January 2014

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) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a whiff of notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources provided in this article establishes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 January 2014

Where, I don't see many. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The interview with Gratton in the Cambridge magazine is comprehensive and confirms her notability, along with her early career as an actress. There are other articles, which are referenced too; again, establishing notability and validates the Wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the interview in Cambridge Business is pretty fluffy, but it is substantial and independent as far as I can tell. She's borderline, but I think just squeaks over the WP:GNG bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Cambridge magazine piece (which starts on page 67, TheLongTone, as I have added to the cite) is enough, aand there is significantly more. The In Spire piece also looks quite useful as a cite. DES ^(talk) 01:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The In Spire piece is useless as a cite, since it principally selfmade assertions. It's not exactly a heavyweight source, and the Cambridge magazine is little better. The woman is a relentless self-promoter: it would be remarkable if there was zero coverageTheLongTone (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Freedom Writers Diary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Freedom Writer

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

Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:BKCRIT. All assertions of notability are unsourced. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BKCRIT as mentioned above. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Freedom_Writers_Diary#Further_reading. The problem is that while the topic of the book, the Freedom Writers, is very notable, this particular book is not. I can't find where it has received any actual coverage. What I think would be a good alternative would be to just redirect to a "further reading" section on the main article for the book. If further people in the class decide to write memoirs, we can always flesh it out somewhat and add a section about others writing companion pieces to the main book, but I think that for now a further reading section would be a nice compromise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing administrator: If this article gets deleted, can you please also delete the newly-created author redirect Darrius Garrett? That is a notable basketball player whose article hasn't been written yet and it would help WikiProject College Basketball editors to see his name as a red link on articles such as this and this. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this, although I would note that this was originally a standalone article. I ended up redirecting it because it lacked independent notability from the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I understand. It looks like this is going to get deleted, so I wanted to make sure a player whose bio I do intend on eventually creating gets deleted as well, just to remind me/WP:CBB editors that Darrius Garrett is not actually created yet. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE: Darrius Garrett is now a created basketball biography off of the redirect. Please ignore my previous request to have it deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect with brief summary added to further reading - it would be good to add a sentence or two following the redirect, Sadads (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Freedom Writers Diary. It has some local press coverage[30][31][32], but not enough to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediatization of communicative action

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

apparently one person's theory. I can not really fix it, because I cannot figure out what it is talking about. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TNT. Most sources are in German. For a highly theoretical topic in social sciences, this presents an impenetrable barrier because of translation problems etc. The article is unintelligible. When wp:secondary coverage about the topic appears in English, this might have a chance. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely because of the total lack of clearly-pertinent English sources. Take something that's published entirely in a different language, and you could write about what the sources say on that topic, but it would have to be something specifically about the foreign-language phrase. We might well be able to have an article on "Mediatisierung kommunikativen Handelns", talking strictly about the different German sources that explore the idea, but something that's deeply theoretical (funny how "highly theoretical" and "deeply theoretical" are the same...) and not in English really can't cover the concept itself appropriately. All we can do is basically an extended literature review right now, without bringing in English sources to establish facts in fields that might be related to the topic. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biobloc

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

This article is little more than an extended promotion for Dr.Mew's Biobloc Orthotropics® method WQUlrich (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Delete this article which looks like an advertisement, but it would be good to redirect this and the other product names (such as Twin bloc) to an article on the broader subject of orthodontic jaw posturing devices. Is there a term or generic phrasing for this type of product so we can cover it encyclopedically? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

blatant advertisement pushing non-notable treatment. as best, merge with Orthotropics®. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdurrahman Mohammad Fachir

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. being an ambassador does not grant automatic notability. all the coverage merely confirms he has been an ambassador rather than anything indepth. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found more hits using the name "AM Fachir", but since most of the pages were in Indonesian and I don't have any knowledge of Indonesian, I couldn't tell if they were reliable or not. Nevertheless, from a cursory look, with the help of Google Translate, I can say that none of the hits I saw were actually about him; at most, they were statements by him or were releases from Indonesia's Foreign Ministry. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jooho Kim

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

Not notable Bazonka (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would think it's a speedy deletion candidate. I don't see an assertion of notability. There is also an issue about the subject or someone apparently close or related to the subject creating and editing the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no real claim to notability here as per WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N4 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per N4. - Turtlepump (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Johnson (American football)

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

Non-notable athlete - fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he has not played in the NFL. Also fails WP:NCOLLATH as he was not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources for his college career beyond mentions in routine coverage. Hack (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it stinks to be an offensive linemen for Wikipedia, but they just hardly ever have any coverage to surpass WP:GNG and that is also the case here. Without winning a national award at the college level and having not played professionally, I cannot find any measure to pass WP:N or any other measure at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:N has not been established here. Article also fails WP:V. N4 (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requirements aren't met, so deletion is the necessary outcome, however I think separate notability guidelines should be established for offensive linemen since it is really hard for them met notability requirement especially player like Johnson who are Practice Squad members.--Rockchalk717 00:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After over a month and three relistings, there is no consensus at this time regarding retention or deletion of the article. There are distinct possibilities of a page move and/or merge(s), the discussion of which can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a cleverly crafted article about the subject but who's fundamental notability for an article here requires discussion. He appeared briefly in a TV reality show. The article appears stuffed with fluff to make the subject significantly more notable than they are. Leaky Caldron 20:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To my surprise all the previous AfDs listed are about this person and so this is actually the fifth nomination:
- May 2006 - delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed
- August 2006 - keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed2
- September 2006 - delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed3
- March 2009 - keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect. The only to things he has done that are actually potentially notable in our terms are to have appeared on The Apprentice and to have appeared in a documentary about him starting his own hand dryer business with the latter entirely down to the former and actually I think would confer more notability on the company (SAVortex, which doesn't seem to have ever had an article) than on him. If the company were notable then I'd suggest a very heavily trimmed version of this article could be merged there, but as it isn't I'd suggest moving this page back to Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) (so Syed Ahmed (politician) can take the primary topic title) and then redirect to The Apprentice (UK series 2). Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete altogether, and make a protected redirect to the politician so the article cannot be diverted. Appearing in a game show is not notability, and it's time we decided that once and for all. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article about him has been created on the London Wiki - possibly needing some development, so a compromise with WP can be reached. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since his participation on The Apprentice: the subject has maintained his media and business profile, and gained more notability. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of The Apprentice candidates (UK series two)#Syed Ahmed. The subject is largely notable for his appearance on the reality TV show and so is only notable for one event as per WP:1E, however, the subject has remained active since then. His career after his TV appearances are verifiable in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources so he at the very least fulfills WP:BASIC. They should not be included in his "mini-bio" at the suggested merge page. N4 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well sourced and subject seems notable. YousufMiah (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources independent, reliable & article meets GNG. 81.129.157.53 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost certainly an invalid !vote per WP:ILLEGIT. Leaky Caldron 14:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 05:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third relist rationale - While there is a decent quantity of discussion here, there is not much policy-based discussion on whether or not this individual passes WP:GNG (and why, or why not). I think the discussion is close to attaining a consensus, but not quite there yet. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 05:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources refer to/highlight his appearance on The Apprentice, which does not merit notability. The article, as the nomination states, is fancruft to keep him visible. — Wylie pedia 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke Willmott

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

They are big but not distinctive or notable. This is pure advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a business is unusually large, that is distinctive. James500 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This firm has received coverage in a number of books previewed in GBooks. James500 (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the books aren't about them are they? They are mostly legal directories like yellow pages. Every firm has an entry. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think every firm gets an entry? Where does it say that? Link please. James500 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources just aren't strong enough to establish notability. Thelawyer.com is a dead link and the legal500 refs are from directories. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lawyer" has an overview of the firm here. They say it is the 75th largest by turnover. I can't access the "The Lawyer UK 200 2013" either, but I suspect that is because I am neither subscribed nor logged in. Sources are not required to be free. James500 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a plausible redirect to List of largest United Kingdom-based law firms. It is number 72 on the list. Information about the firm could be tabulated there if need be. James500 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~No Reliable refs no article~~. Szzuk (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is manifest nonsense. There are reliable sources, particularly in GBooks (e.g. Chambers [33] and Pritchard's "The Legal 500" [34]). The issue that has been raised is the depth of coverage (which I am not sure I agree with since the firm is mentioned on 43 pages in one book and 33 in the other and some of the comments don't look like entries in a phonebook). James500 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted. If you address the issue - depth of coverage - I'll redact the delete too, otherwise I'll stay with it. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 05:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Frost

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations, No independent, reliably sourced content. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Finnegas (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Fails GNG without non-trivial reliable source coverage. None found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Rae

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations, No independent, reliably sourced content. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. No substantial reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with proposed deletion for reasons of non-notability listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N4 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as above, meets all the criteria for deletion and none for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Orange Sphere (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Edelstein

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

The only RS ref I could locate was the LA Times story cited in the article, which is primarily based on an interview with the subject and not usable to show notability. In addition, there seems to be a flurry of additions of this guys name to different articles, prompting me to suspect this may be a promotional article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He may qualify simply as part of the production team for two films that were nominated for or received major Best Film awards; The Straight Story was nom'd for Palm d'Or, Mulholland Drive]] one several critics best-picture awards. I know that the Oscar for Best Picture is considered a producers award; do we apply that logic to other awards? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 04:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 04:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Innovation Challenge

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

This seems to be a minor initiative of one particular university - I don't think this is notable. Khendon (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom's assessment. This page was evidently created by a single-purpose account as part of a larger effort to establish WP presence for faculty/programs at a particular institution. Aside from the text being essentially WP:PROMOTION, none of the WP:RSs actually discuss WIC, but are instead about larger topics like entrepreneurship, women in mathematics, etc. I did some searching for WIC-specific sources, but aside from web and Facebook pages, I could only find the conference paper from 2012 written by the founder of the program. Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Should not be deleted. In regards to not being notable, other university's have adapted this program at their school. For example, Gonzaga University, Kettering University, Lawrence Tech, University of Detroit Mercy, Ohio Northern University, and Rice University all have adapted this initiative.

This program is being used across the country in not only college settings, but also high schools to help develop an entrepreneurial mindset in students at an early age.

Rice link - http://oedk.rice.edu/innovate SR College in India also has a program - http://www.srecwarangal.ac.in/CED/home.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.208.22 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying implies that this program was the first of its kind and inspired those at the other institutions you named. In that case, I think I would agree that SLU WIC could be notable, if sources could be found – so far, there still are none. However, it appears that WICs were going on at other institutions long before the one at SLU (evidently founded in 2011). For example, the UMass WIC was already established by 2005. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 23:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of music used by Apple Inc.

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

I suspect this fails WP:SAL due to a lack of reliable sources discussing the topic as a group. Most of the current referencing currently consists of primary sources that demonstrate that yes, such and such a song was used in an Apple ad. As part of WP:BEFORE, I located two probably reliable articles that constitute the right sort of reference, and added them as a new Further reading section. But Mashable is a pretty light source, and the Rolling Stone article was more about the artists than the songs or Apple's advertising. There are also blog sources out there, like this. Perhaps there are more reliable sources out there, but with a topic as intensely studied as Apple, the fact that I'm not finding more is a red flag for me.

Even if the article is kept, it could certainly use some trimming. Do we really need to know every song Apple played at its developers conferences? --BDD (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only known source for all apple songs, please do not delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.191.66 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to our policy against original research, that's actually a reason to delete, not keep. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the page, it's very informative (in my opinion). Lack of sources is correct and a lot of them should be added. If it's going to be deleted, please save the article anywhere else! --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly transfer some information to Apple Inc. advertising. This list is insanely over-detailed. There's nothing wrong with discussing Apple's advertising and their use of music in advertising, since they're a major and innovative advertiser making considerable use of music. But this list goes well beyond describing their advertising to listing every song they played at any event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gab _ 04:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list tries to be a complete list of all music Apple has ever used. So trimming is not really something you can do. Why don't we try to send the (ridiculously detailed) list over to some other site, possibly to http://apple.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Screen? Afterwards we can get rid of these thing and redirect users to Apple Inc. advertising. 89.182.113.206 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP did you guys waste a second to think about the hard and long work done in this? I bet this took abround 2 hrs. It's informative and has a degree in nostalgia though the timeline is not too far in the past. So i vote for keep. I carefully imported this into Music Wiki because this one will probably deleted. --Saviour1981 (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably good, because there's clearly interest in the piece, even if Wikipedia is not the proper place to host it. I'm sure some WP:HARDWORK has been done on this, but that's not relevant to whether or not the article should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what i'm sayin' - if WP's the wrong place, Wikia has an english spoken music page where it can be added to. i already did. Nevertheless, i hate it when hard work got despised... Cheers, goodie ^^ --Saviour1981 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unfortunately, due to low participation after 3 listing periods, I cannot say with certainty that there is a consensus here to delete or a consensus here to keep. This is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janis and Saint Christopher

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

Not in worldcat, tho some e-novels are. References are basically press releases. Accepted at AfC . Maybe there is something here I do not understand that makes for notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has 3rd party sources like QMagazin to prove nobility.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 04:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Hoban

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

The references are either press releases or trivial or related to him. Nothing in his career seems to show any importance.

Accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 04:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major roles in film or TV (occasional appearances or guest roles only, often with minimal speaking). Sources don't quite establish notability per WP:GNG: it's mainly directories, casting sites, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angel McCord

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

Non-notable actress. Only claim to notability is a nomination at a relatively minor film festival. (The Madrid International Film Festival is not even listed in the List of film festivals in Europe.) Much of the press she garners is as AnnaLynne McCord's sister, but notability is not inherited. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not notable as per WP:N or WP:BIO. Further, the claim to notability is for a role (not necessarily a notable leading role) in a non-notable film for which she was nominated for (not necessarily won) an award at a non-notable festival. There is no real claim to notability here. N4 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Computer-aided audit tools. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of specialized computer-aided audit tools

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

Mostly WP:OR article and provides little useful information. For the OR part, the only third-party source cited is a 2004 comparison, which however is way outdated to be useful for the modern software being compared here, except perhaps for choosing some of the comparison criteria. A lot of the criteria used in the wiki page don't appear in that source though. All other refs are primary sources (manufacturers' pages). And most of the software compared actually implements most of the features. The exceptions are minor and those criteria in which there are some differences are not actually among those listed in the 2004 comparison cited. So, it's hard to conclude that this page is anything but WP:OR. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge - possibly just the references, to Computer-aided audit tools. Per nom, OR as these comparison lists often are, also failing GNG as this comparison is covering non-notable software. Only one of the compared software packages has a wikipedia page, and that is for the company, not the software itself.Dialectric (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article provides a good bit of useful information on CAAT products, including lists of criteria by which to judge CAAT systems. But at AfD, utility counts for little. The first reference in the article, a secondary RS [35] provides a basis for a comparison of systems per WP:CSC. But the article goes quite a but beyond that and in the process synthesizes quite a bit of information. While the synth material could be removed, there is still the problem of a second RS. Without multiple RS, this article fails WP:GNG notability guidelines. But per WP:PRESERVE, verifiable information should be preserved instead of deleted. The first ref and possibly a comparison table based on it should be merged into Computer-aided audit tools, the parent article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Entertainment

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

Won a local award but don't seem to be more generally notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search gave no sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kshitij Wagh

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

No third-party reliable sources about the subject of the article to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well.... third-party reliable sources about the subject of the article are present. You may now debate on notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Association Books

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

Doesn't appear to have sources to support notability. I couldn't find a link to the prior AfD discussion on Talk, but it looks like it was previously deleted? CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In 2008 there was a Prod (rationale "Apparent COI creation, no sources given, none added in almost one year") so I don't think there was ever an AfD or deletion. An awkward one this, for me FA has been an influential publisher, both of its journal and books on psychoanalysis and related, but I recognise that evidencing notability is not going to be easy. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Weak Delete: I've had a look for this publishing house among various resources, they don't seem particularly noticeable. ISBS says of them;

Free Association Books (UK) specializes in psychiatry and psychoanalysis; and one of their focuses within those fields
is child and adolescent studies. They also have a strong backlist. The press continues to make available, in English
translation, pertinent works in psychoanalysis. Cultural and sociological studies are growing fields for this press,
whether they are producing books on the culture surrounding drug use, or representing child sexual abuse in the media,
They also publish in gender studies, health and the intersection of technology and health, the last particularly through
books by Michel Odent, a noted obstetrician.

and I could find nothing further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: on the evidence of the quotation given in SPACKlick's remarks above. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ingram

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP1E is usually applied to cases where the person is well-known for a single event and in this case we're talking more about a series of events. That said, the series of events is really all about the same thing. These sorts of stories are often followed up by local news outlets as a "where are they now" or "remember this guy we told you about last year". But that isn't really the same as being notable for something else - it's still the same event. I don't think there's any enduring notability here. Stalwart111 08:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not notable as per WP:BIO. N4 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Stalwart111's logic. Finnegas (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidhegi

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

Article has no sources and makes no credible claim to notability WP:N per WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Article was previously nominated for speedy deletion (A7) which was declined on grounds that although only barely, there was just enough to preclude a speedy delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on how a broadcast television soap opera isn't a claim of notability. Isn't it defacto notability? Is the channel its broadcast on minor? Is the viewership small? I am not being rhetorical, I'm not understanding why this article shouldn't be kept. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question. According to WP:TVSERIES there is a presumption of notability IF the program airs on a national or regional basis, which is not asserted in the article. Further it reads... "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." In short, we don't know if it's notable because it has not made any credible claim and has no sources for us to make a prudent determination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm embarrassed to say it, but even though I am an honorary Tamil, I can't answer these questions. If only SpacemanSpiff were still around... Wait, I do know someone who loves soaps. Sitush, can you please opine? Drmies (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article even at the time of AfD claimed that it airs on Jaya TV which fits the "program airs on a national or regional basis" statement. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Jaya TV. This is a satellite channel and the program does not seem to have received any coverage in reliable independent sources. It's worth noting, but there isn't enough coverage to justifyt an independent article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Canyon fire

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

WP:NOTNEWS Not notable, coverage limited to time of event. TheLongTone (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is not news With limited sourcing and citations.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Zapata

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

Not notable. No real assertion of notability other than being the half-sister of a celebrity. Refs confirm she exists and that her half-sister was famous but nothing else. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep-she is a legend on her own, look it up!^[1]-though IMDB lacks a really accurate list of her works because she has been in about 30 soap operas. Perhaps a few references are needed. Antonio The Fish Martin por aqui 08:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She may not be notable internationally wise, but she is a well known and notable actress in Mexico. A person does not need to have international notability in order to be notable. A person can be notable in his/her nation or local home town. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not know if I can vote again since I already voted earlier. Antonio Rising Star Martin por aqui 07:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some reliable sources I found that are not related to the kidnapping: [36], [37] [38]. Erick (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwik Konarzewski-junior

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

No special notability asserted. No evidence f any particular notability. No in-line citations and ISBN is unrecognised for book listed in "Further reading". Some evidence of WP:COI in the authorship of this article Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Abstain. No major Google Book hits (as in, no biography, even footnote-size); he is mentioned as a creator of several works in a dozen or so books. He has a footnote bio in an (online only?) article at [39] (notable Polish newspaper, Nasz Dziennik). He is one of the subjects (but not the only one) in an article describing his family's artistic history, at a regional Polish portal/newspaper ([40]). Inconsequential mention in [41]. Two offline sources impossible to verify; one of them is supposedly an article dedicated to him in a magazine that doesn't have an entry on pl wiki. Nope, not seeing enough to save it. PS. Pl wiki deletion discussion started at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2014:02:03:Ludwik Konarzewski (junior). PPS. Polish wiki editors were able to find some better sources; two local newspaper mentions at [42] and [43] show regional notability. As this is now too borderline for my tastes, I am changing to abstain. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A local artist with somewhat limited exposure, but a square is named after him. I'd say, it would be probably procedural in here. Now cleaned up with greatly expanded reference section. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as he seems to have quite a bit of info, the place he's from needs some "claim to fame" and his Dad's page is even smaller and isn't marked for deletion - could do with some pictures of his art or his statues though. Note: I tend to swerve towards keeping things unless there's a really good reason not to. Escottf (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schumacher Racing Products

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

Using Wikipedia for their sales catalogue. Massive prune needed, unclear if there's a notable company hiding within here at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have not "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." So, lacks notability, unless someone can find sources. Danrok (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shock: Social Science Fiction

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shock: Social Science Fiction

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

Fails to meet general notability guidelines due to lack of reliable sources. Ewilen (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | express _ 04:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Indie role-playing game. BOZ (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Cary

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

potential vanity piece, unsure as to whether the World Record claims warrant inclusion Stevenbarker100 (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What world record? I see no details or sources for this "record". Three marathons in a row is less than a 100 mile ultramarathon. One newspaper article doesn't get it done. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject of article is non-notable. The article is unverified. A search other sources to very notability either demonstrates this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N4 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is clearly non-notable. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paul Czege. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine Girls

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

This article fails to meet general notability guidelines due to lack of independent reliable sources on the topic. Ewilen (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paul Czege the game's designer. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The article doesn't establish notability of the subject. Paul Czege is more notable and a stub that would benefit with the two unique lines from the Nicotine Girls article. N4 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paul Czege as above - not sufficient notability for independent article. One ref is written by the designer, and the other is a minor award. A search turns up some blog entries, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carman

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

Thinly sourced biography of questionably notable actor. Only reference is to subject's own webpage biography which is also listed in the external links. Prose outside of the filmography section consists of 2 sentences. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows..." You could make a case for his roles in Nim's Island, Hercules Returns, MDA (TV series), and voice work in The New Adventures of Ocean Girl, as well as a major role in Gerry Connolly Show which doesn't have an article (though Gerry Connolly (comedian) does). --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply NACTOR is good and all but it derives it's authority from WP:BASIC which is where I'm deriving the notability concern off of. Also using WP:OSE with Gerry Connolly is not such a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR works on the basis that Carman will be covered in reviews/previews/critical studies of his work, much of which will only be found in Australian libraries: the National Library of Australia claims to have material.[44] By the way, it's not WP:OSE to refer people to an article that may contain useful information. If anyone is making arguments to avoid, you're guilty of WP:VAGUEWAVE there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: will be covered is WP:CRYSTAL. Prove it or the article has to go. It's currently just a bunch of listings with no verify ability. The article must be backed up by multiple reliable sources as it's a BLP. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Add Oz (1976 film) to the above list. Carman has enough good roles and has enough coverage for GNG. Beck, Chris (23 September 2006), "Double exposure", The Age and Munro, Ian (12 January 1997), "Between Jobs", Sunday Age both have good coverage of Carman. There is also Kyriakou, Dimi (23 November 2009), "Ghost bandit haunts series", Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Philip Leader and Byrne, Fiona (5 October 2003), "Carman didn't wannabe snubbed", Sunday Herald Sun. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme And why did you not read the very first line of that section? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again, all that's being done is obstructing the nomination and improving the article. All you're do is waving your hands at vague policies without dealing with the problem. FIX IT. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"obstructing the nomination"? Is anyone that disagrees with you obstructing your goals? It that how it works? Hasteur And why did you not read the very first line of that section? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Since Carmen has received such coverage he is presumed to be suitable. All you're do is waving your hands at vague policies without dealing with the problem. FIX IT. Try also reading some of the other policies you refer to. Crystal does not talk about things that have already happened. referring to Gerry Connolly like that was not a OSE argument. Providing suitable references is not a vague wave. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuguegarao fire

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

No doubt a sad event for the ones involved, but is it notable enough for inclusion in WP? I think this fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" non-notable event. --Stormbay (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Event is not notable and a quick google search shows little in the way of reliable independent sources. N4 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly, there's no long-term notability or coverage for this tragic event. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King's Own Band

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has the rare honour of being named by the King himself and having a banner presented by the Queen. Given the fact that brass bands are a major part of Maltese public life, I think this qualifies as sufficient notability. Needs a good copyedit though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Reporting Program

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

article on a single academic program within a school of journalism. The school of journalism is notable, the program not. It might be worth am ention in the main article, but I'm not even sure of that, and the name is too generic to be a useful redirect--anyone lookingfor it would look for the article on the school. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Honestly this one could probably have been killed with PROD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Award winning journalism program that has produced several notable works and received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. At the very least it would be more appropriate to merge into the parent subject (The Journalism School) rather than engage in wholesale deletion of a program that has been influential and significant in its achievements in the field of journalism. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, received recognition in the form of awards, also good secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG per the refs. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of British Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. Program is verifiable and notable as per the previous comments but shouldn't require an article of it's own as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. N4 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RISE Project

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

I'm sure these people are doing great work, but I just don't see independent coverage here. Almost all the links come from the project's own site, and the others don't help in terms of WP:N either. And, needless to say, the article was created by a single-purpose account. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article and sources fail to establish any notability as per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I added this entry and I followed all the suggestions from the wikipedia editors when I created it, they seemed to be ok with it at that point. I am not sure why it is a problem to include here a media organization that's fighting corruption like many other journalism organizations do. You have so many other similar NGOs on wikipedia that are not marked for deletion. RISE is member of some of those organizations, like Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which is also on wikipedia. This article is not meant to promote RISE Project for any hidden interests, it is here just to inform the readers about the existence of this initiative that fights corruption in Romania and the region. RISE's work has been quoted in media all around Europe and beyond, something that I didn't include there just to avoid being accused of a promotional entry (you can find it quoted just by simple search on google). I think the reasons for which you are asking for its deletion are not realistic and it's an exaggeration on your part, not a very fair attitude. I was not seeking to create any promotional material for RISE here, just basic public information. And I also don't see why it is a problem that this is the first entry I created...there are just too many unfounded accusations from your part, which seems a bit biased to me. Thanks Lra2014 (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2 Biruitorul • Gene93k: I added more external references now, that should meet your observations above, let me know what you think.Lra2014 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article definitely has references to reliable sources but none of the sources specifically mentions the RISE Project in detail. If this article is going to be deleted, it will be because of the lack of reliable coverage. Finding reliable sources is one thing but Wikipedia relies on significant coverage. versace1608 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Echoing your comments, versace1608, yes, the article has four or five more or less reliable sources that mention the project. However, the coverage is never about the project itself, but rather about its activities or the opinions of people associated with it. And it's usually mentioned only in passing. What we have as of now doesn't seem to me to fulfill the spirit of WP:ORG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let me know if I get it correctly - you mean other sources that cover RISE Project but without interviews of the members? I see the point, however, RISE Project is an organization made of a group of people and therefore, the members are those who are asked to talk about its work, it's quite rare that others write about an active media entity without contacting its current members for interviews - it's actually normal to seek members' opinions in this field. Plus, it's an anti-corruption journalism organization, it uncovers organized crime networks and corruption cases, everybody who features it wants to hear more about the investigations, how journalists work and what tools they use, their results etc, and that means, you will always have a member talking about these in full knowledge. This is what happens with most similar organizations in the region. Plus, we need to take into account that such organizations are part of a new trend in journalism in Eastern Europe, they haven't been around for decades like the traditional journalism centers from the US. - So, I am not sure that what you are asking here is possible in this case. It is a normal thing to ask generally but it might just not fit in here. What I can do is to add the sources that write about RISE Project but there will always be a member interviewed in there, there is also a TacticalTech documentary (Exposing the Invisible - Our Currency is Information) with a profile of one of RISE members and filmed at RISE Project if that's appropriate to add there.Lra2014 (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take to decide on this entry's deletion or acceptance? I see it's frozen at the moment and I would like to know what to do with it. I wouldn't want to keep it with the deletion mark forever. Thank you Lra2014 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per refs, appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also consider Rise Project an important group of investigative journalism from Romania. One example: they contributed essentially to the now famous "romanian autumn demonstrations" of 2013 (romanians fighting against Rosia Montana project in the Carpathian mountains), when they (Rise) published the secret contracts between the romanian state and the Gabriel Resources Co. These contracts were hidden from public view since about 15 years, and Rise P. were the ones able to make them available. (media coverage to be found here: ^[2]) I really do not know another journalists group with this importance in Romania today, perhaps except EFOR (but EFOR are rather economists and law specialists, not journalists). Horia mar (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Horia mar has supplied a press release issued by the project itself, which hardly counts as independent coverage. VMS Mosaic has not done even that. Just what specific "refs", VMS Mosaic, demonstrate that this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gina Keatley. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Soul with Gina Keatley

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

Notability isn't demonstrated by the references, which are either trivial or directly related to the production. A google search turned up no significant editorial coverage. JSFarman (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish WP:N and sources fail WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to existing article on Gina Keatley. While this production does not appear to have achieved notability there is no reason to expunge it entirely when the show's host has an existing article. Merging is the most reasonable outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Candleabracadabra. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Anderson (British director)

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

Unreferenced for seven years. Looked around and couldn't find any sources. Only directed a handful of films, and only mentions in books are film repositories just listing him when noting Daybreak in Udi with no extra information. Wizardman 17:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite what the article formerly said[45], listing Anderson as director of Daybreak in Udi, sources list Terry Bishop as its director[46][47][48] - our article on the film says Anderson produced it but the sources do not confirm this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listed as the producer on Daybreak.. here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who has a tribute ceremony in their honour at the National Film Theatre is clearly worthy of an encyclopedia entry. And well done to User:Aymatth2 for finding the references and putting the work in. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(article shoud be moved to "Max Anderson (director)" though). --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the excellent expansion work by Aymatth2 and agree with the page move. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a thin biography, mostly but not entirely a catalog of works, but at least three of the works are notable enough to warrant articles. There are enough sources, even if superficial in coverage, to satisfy WP:GNG. The tributes probably give more depth. A notable director. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly no question as to his notability as a British documentarian, at this point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give credit to Aymatth2 for the expansion. I looked around and couldn't find anything, how he found all that is impressive. Suffice to say, nom withdrawn. Wizardman 01:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mann family. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dohm–Mann family tree

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

No evidence of notability, sources, or significance. Unreferenced for seven years. Wizardman 16:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 21:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people on this family tree are certainly as notable as the random kings we have on other family trees. (See Category:Family trees for lots of random genealogy information up to the Ancestry charts of Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton). If this shouldn't be standalone, one could consider merging with the clearly notable Mann family. —Kusma (t·c) 21:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems sensible for such a family tree. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Dealtry

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

CSD removed with the rationale that "the book about him establishes notability". I don't buy that, can find no trace of the work (although William Cooper is a pretty miserable name to punch into search engines) & doubt that it was more than an obit published as a pamphlet. Only substantial refereence is to the man's tomb. This may be notable, but I don't think the person is. TheLongTone (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy work on my part, should have tried using the title of the workk, which, as Google books shows, is, as I supposed, a very short privately printed work, and in no way establishes notability,TheLongTone (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much is known about him, that is true - but he is still remembered in York after 200 years - can that be said of other minor celebrities listed on Wikipedia? He wrote books, had a book written about him, re-built an important building (Judges' Lodgings) and is commemorated by a magnificent monument in York Minster.

I am sure there is a lot more - see e.g. [49] and [50]

¬¬¬¬

Have you actually read the "book"? As noted, it is no more than one would expect of a funeral oration. Twelve pages, of which four are text. It's a pamphlet, not a book.TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This is an 18th Century figure with coverage in the 18th and 19th centuries. Writing about someone back then was a much bigger deal than it would be today and amounts to significant coverage. Add to that the sources are still extant today to show that coverage in these books is meaningful. Certainly there was enough significance to not tag for CSD. And sometimes quality of coverage is more important than volume. If there is enough to show notable achievements, then that suffices. If the article creator could add more sourcing, that would help a lot to keep the article. (Could someone do something with the formatting of this discussion. Hard to read.) Dloh cierekim 15:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jb1944: there are claims of significance here that are not made in the article. It would be helpful to put them in the article with sourcing. You mention other claims of significance in the article. It would be helpful to elaborate and source there. Dloh cierekim 15:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 04:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dealtry was a doctor in York, who left his widow enough money to erect a gsignificant tomb for him. That is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to delete the notability claim was tenuous, and there has been no improvement in sourcing. The nice epitaph is not enough and I've changed my mind about the suitability of the book. Dloh cierekim 23:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chick-fil-A#Advertising. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eat More Kale

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

Small t-shirt printing company whose only claim to fame is a brief incident involving Chick-fil-A. Beyond that, not notable: a blimp on the radar screen of the media at the time, with no lasting results. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - I'm inclined to agree with Drmies. Either delete it or redirect it to Chick-fil-A#Advertising. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - As per EvergreenFir, don't see how this company meets notability, it was part of a trademark battel with Chick-fil-A so redirecting there, where it would be set perfectly in. ///EuroCarGT 21:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we can come up with substantial coverage in books or academic journals. This is not the Burger King restaurant in Mattoon, Illinois: we have an article about it because it's a critical part of a major court case in US trademark law, not because of news coverage from the incident. We need to have evidence of enduring significance, which appears to be thoroughly absent here. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarecrow (song)

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

The song was never a single, it was just a B-side, following which it was an album song. It never charted. It is only discussed in the context of the first single or the album. See the Allmusic page about the song, and another Allmusic page confirming the B-side status. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. There is a lot of information on this article that, if it can be verified, makes this song pass the bar of notability - particularly that they shot a promotional film for it. Taken as a whole this is too much to merge into the articles about either the A side or the album, however if its not all verifiable then a reduced summary of what is would be fine on either one of those articles (and I don't really have a preference which). I don't see any cause for deletion though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added an NME reference to the existence of the promo film. The NME page contains a YouTube video of it. There is also a mention of the film in a book at Google books. I know there's a trick to using that as a ref but I've forgotten it at the moment. I don't think the song being a B-side disestablishes notability, as there have been notable songs that were only ever B-sides. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose nshala

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

This person fails WP:BLP. There are no reliable sources with significant coverage. The article is also an autobiography (the author reveled himself to be Ambrose Nshala at Wikimedia Commons). The same article was already speedily deleted twice, and is now recreated with some "references" none of which points to a reliable source. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would like to declare that I'm the author of the article and it is true that it is a biography of a living person. However, I believe the proposal to delete it is based on the deletion history of the article on wikipedia. Unfortunately the first time I created it, I was not well versed with creating articles and references, so I failed to include reliable sources because of the syntax and not because they were not available.I request this article be judged in this light and not the shadow of the past. AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most references made are reliable. I have also deleted most personal information from unofficial sources I could not reference. AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also confirm that I am not Ambrose Nshala, though I declared at Wikimedia Commons the photos I uploaded were copyrighted to him, because he gave me explicit permission to do so, having contacted him. AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded two photos of Nshala at Wikimedia Commons and tagged them both as "own work". In the "author" field you typed "[[User:AfroPianist|Ambrose Nshala]]" which clearly implies that AfroPianist and Ambrose Nshala are the same person. If you are not him, and you have the permission from the author to use photos under free license, you have to send the permission to the OTRS team. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Nshala is a respectable member of our community and a leader of various development and humanitarian efforts. AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi User:AfroPianist. I've struck the duplicate "keep" parts of your comments above, because in Articles for deletion discussions in English Wikipedia only one denoted !vote is allowed. However, please feel free to comment all you'd like within the discussion. Thanks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction,Northamerica1000 it's my first time and a whole new world of Wikipedia is opening to me! AfroPianist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the editing to remove the duplicate "keep" parts above that were previously there. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont know who this person is so I read the article over and over. Mr Nshala is a vice pressident of a bank. He is a president of a rotary chapter in his town and he is a public accountant. He is also a politician in his region. Still my question is is he notable and for what? Ok he might be notable amongs Rotary members or voters in his region but is that enough? If the writer of the article could write down what makes him notable in the article itself with some reffs than I will change my vote but as it is I must question notability issue. I might sound harsh and I dont mean it. I apologyze. I am only trying to make a point.Stepojevac (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 04:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't possibly see what the subject is notable for. He has a couple of locally high-profile roles in different companies and community groups but nothing that rises to the level of national significance, thus the lack of anything other than local newspaper coverage. That's not enough for a pass against WP:GNG in my view. Stalwart111 07:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only possibly defining characteristic is being vice president of a bank. However, bank vice presidents are not notable. If he was president of Bank M, maybe, but not as vice president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB&T Financial Group

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

Was dePRODed in good faith but searches for independent, in-depth 3rd-party sources come up with only routine coverage (e.g. press releases and stock market reports) that do not assert notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, did a bit of searching including looking in Factiva, but only found very routine coverage (stock prices, etc). Does not meet WP:CORP in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Rename to National Bank and Trust and re-purpose to be about the bank, not the holding company. Have information about the holding company as a small part of a larger article. While smaller banks generally do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the historic lineage of this bank (dating to 1850) greatly increases the odds of finding something that rises to the level of significant, non-local coverage. I have seen borderline-significant local/novelty-press coverage in two books, The History of Clinton County, Ohio: Containing a History of the County, Its Townships, Cities, Towns, Etc., General and Local Statistics, Portraits of Early Settlers and Prominent Men, History of the Northwest Territory, History of Ohio, Map of Clinton County, Constitution of the United States, Etc, Volume 1. Heritage Books. 2002. p. 531. and Brown, Albert J. (1915). History of Clinton County, Ohio: Its People, Industries, and Institutions. p. 222.. I have also seen possible evidence that there is still a market for vintage bank notes issued by this bank or its predecessors. If a bank of this bank's size were not historic, I would probably recommend deletion given my inability to find more coverage than I have found. I am okay with a soft-deletion or userfication to allow an editor to take the time to find more suitable references. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added Hoover's ref. Other refs appear readily available. Meets WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Guile

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Two members of the same band formed this project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Crimson Armada, where this side project is mentioned. I'm not finding significant coverage for this group to warrant a separate article. Gong show 05:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 11:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad issues (1952–59)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory and I don't see a reason to list every issue the magazine has ever put out. Along with this nomination:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A list of every feature of every issue of Mad? That really is mad. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN being covered in sources such as MAD: Cover to Cover : 48 Years, 6 Months & 3 Days of MAD and Completely MAD: A History of the Comic Book and Magazine. WP:DIRECTORY is irrelevant as that is directed at commercial directories rather than bibliographies and other types of reference list. Andrew (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the abstract given on "Amazon", it would appear both of the books that you mention are more interested in the covers and not the content of the magazines themselves. I do not see the justification for having a list of issues with contents based on these references (which do not appear to be used in the article in any case). WP:DIRECTORY may not be relevant, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE point 1 would appear to be relevant.

No, WP:INDISCRIMINATEis irrelevant too because this is a list which does not go into excessive detail about any of the particular contents. Andrew (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion it is not excessive, in mine it is. Op47 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thankyou Gloss for letting me know, had you looked on the talk page of List of Mad issues, you would know what I really think. Unfortunately, if this lot is deleted (and I can see your point and clarityfiends even more succinct point) then List of Mad issues would need to be deleted as well (merging some content into the parent article if you really must). List of Mad issues was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mad Magazine issues and the result was keep. Personally, I would stuff a nuke under this insanity and get on with something worth doing. Not even Mad magazine is mad enough to list this lot. And if this article piqued someones curiosity then there is no way to obtain the relevant issue. Anyroad, I refrained from nominating it for deletion because it is bad form to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion and that is the only way I refrained from voting delete with a capital D. Per WP:BADIDEA, this is "some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated". Op47 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, Delete Op47 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all See no reason to delete. Calling it indiscriminate is a value judgement, a personal bias, not an objective fact. Calling it a Directory is also not supported, there is nothing there that defines it as a Directory. It's a List article, any list article could be accused of being a directory. It would help to have an introductory lead paragraph. -- GreenC 04:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What, me worry? Mad is a significant part of American pop culture. Of course we should keep this. Some day, I expect them to do, "Wikipedia Articles We'd Like to See". If you're all bent out of shape over this, please go grab the nearest copy and get an attitude adjustment. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that Mad is a significant part of American pop culture, and that is why we should have an article on Mad. I would like to grab a copy, especially of the issues in this article, but I cannot. This article is just making me aware of something I can't have and that is what is adjusting my attitude to delete this lot. Op47 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position, I think that the material in these articles should be kept. I have no particular opinion on where it lives. Keeping one article per decade is fine. Merging them all into one big List of MAD issues is OK too, as is merging it all into Mad (magazine). Looking forward to Deletionist Spy vs. Inclusionist Spy -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The analogy is with our many series of articles on TV show episodes. The cultural importance is at least as great as almost any of them. and that's the reason we give for keeping the episode articles , and it applies here also. Indeed, to make it similar, we'd have individual articles on each issue. Op47's argument that "it just makes me aware of something I cannot have" is an unusual for of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT--on that argument, we should delete the articles about any number of wonderful historical things--or for that matter, on luxury goods. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largely in agreement with DGG's analogy. Now, I am not particularly a fan of large piles of Wikipedia content that aren't backed by secondary sources but instead rely on Wikipedia's enumeration of primary sources, but usually that concern arises from concerns about simply eroding notability and, as a result, neutrality about what to include or not. In this case, however, I think it's both obvious that the topic is notable (a lousy argument, I admit) and that there's other evidence for that notability (in particular, Andrew Davidson's sources). --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all into List of MAD issues. There's no apparent reason for splitting them up by decade, it makes navigation and text-searching unnecessarily cumbersome, and the articles are all small enough that they can be combined into one without it being overlong.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it would be too long. There is server overhead in displaying tables and combining all into a single page (even with multiple tables) would be considerable horsepower. One could test it with a sandbox page and see how long Preview and Saves take. -- GreenC 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salming Sports

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

Fail WP:CORP, no independent secondary sources provided. JMHamo (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. i agree with nom. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not even going to go into notability here sence there clearly is one and a big one. You cant go into any shop in Sweden and not see Salming products especially underwear. Still this article is not a good one to be nice. I am suprized the writer didnt write a bigger one or added more sources and reffs. There are tons of them on the net. The article itself is a keep becouse of its notability BUT needs to be seriously rewroten. As it is now its bad.Stepojevac (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 04:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Removed accidental double-relist; actual relist log is for 15 February 2014 --slakr^\ talk / 11:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though the article is at the very best a stub, it is a notable subject. Salming sports is one of swedens most known brands when it comes to underwear.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:30, 21 February 2014 (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} 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD suffered in relisting, being relisted to the 15th - then to the 18th, but then auto-added to the 21st's log, putting it in both the 15th's and the 21'st logs. I've relisted it to the 23rd's, where it can now run out to a conclusion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Elam

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

Promotional autobiograph with very borderline notability at best.. Contributor has resisted an effort to even tag it with a pressrelease tag, so I'm bringing it here as unfixable, which I probably should have done in the first place. It's a particularly bad representative of what has come here from AfC

"represented the coworking community as a spokesperson through major media channels and government summits" in the lede is pretty diagnostic. The entire sections 2, 3 and 5 are minor material that nobody would rationally care about but herself , her friends...and, mostly, her commercial associates. (note the photo of her undistinguished workspace in section 3.) Section 4 is out and out advertising for her projects. I note the sentence "Link Coworking is open from 9am until 6pm Monday through Friday",

I see nothing that resembles a usable reference. I see local business papers, which have a reputation for printing press releases they get from local businesses; I see some specialized trade newsletters, which do the same; and I see a few undisguised press releases from PRweb.

Some recent edits in the subject's own name have added a few more conferences. Even if the subject did not interfere, I would not try to fix this, because there's not enough notable substance. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'll remove section 4. I would argue that Coworking is a rapidly emerging industry with 200% year over year for the past 8 years and is newsworthy. I would argue that Creative Morning, NY Times, SXSW, Forbes, Business Insiderand more. Are all press releases deemed bad? Thanks, for your help, just trying to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizelam (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to cross the notability threshold. While there is possibly sufficient coverage of the company to warrant a small article, the mentions of the subject herself are either glancing or in non-independent sources. (Press releases can sometimes be used for verifiability but they cannot prove notability.) If it's kept, the article needs a major re-write, but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that the only sources which could conceivably be used to establish notability seem to establish more notability for the company than the person. Some small amount of the information here could be merged with an article about the company, if created. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person in business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucía Parker

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

I am interpreting WP:MUSICBIO 8, "Has won or been nominated for a major music award" as not including a nomination for the 39th Gospel Music Association Dove award for "Spanish Language Album of the Year". The awards are not major while the category is a not one of the premier awards. However, if I'm interpreting that incorrectly, feel free to vote keep. However, if I am correct, the subject fails MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 04:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does seem to be a professional musician, but where is evidence of notability? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most contributors think that there isn't much worth merging. Sandstein 08:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Zionist proposals for alternative Jewish homelands

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

Hopeless POV fork of Proposals for a Jewish state loaded with WP:NOR and potential BLP violations. Delete Secret ^account 00:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's unclear on the definition of what constitutes Anti-Zionist (it's obviously a contested tag) so the article is best served at Proposals for a Jewish state which doesn't need original research to decide inclusion criteria. Nick (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - serves no purpose other than as a POV essay. As above, there are better articles that cover these issues in more (and more accurate) detail without relying on POV nonsense. Stalwart111 02:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a POV-laden content fork. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Proposals for a Jewish state by removing all duplicate and non-NPOV material and retaining whatever is worthwhile in this clear violation of WP:POVFORK. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Proposals for a Jewish state. I agree with IZAK. This article was an open wound since its creation. (Btw, it doesn't mention that one of the "anti-Zionist" proposals was for a time supported by a large faction in the Zionist organization including Theodor Herzl, but we wouldn't expect it to given its POV purpose.) Zero^talk 09:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for merging content if there is anything useful there but is it really worth keeping that POV title? Where's the value in that? Is anyone like to search for a title like that? Stalwart111 11:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stalwart111: The title would just become a mere WP:REDIRECT to Proposals for a Jewish state. Strange as it may seem there are definitely some "schools of thought" that refer to the topic in those kinds of ways, and that do not see the use of the words "Anti-Zionist proposals" or "alternative Jewish homelands" as "POV", but on the contrary as being NPOV accurate. The phrase "anti-Zionist/s" is not POV, there are articles on WP based on it, see Anti-Zionism, Timeline of anti-Zionism, and there are many anti-Zionists, both Jewish and non-Jewish, and the broad Category:Anti-Zionism, so this topic is not way out at all. The topic should not be done away with, maybe someone will actually write a decent article about it one day, it could be done. IZAK (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, IZAK, for responding so comprehensively. I suppose I've always seen the phrase as somewhat POV and in combination with the subject matter it seemed disjointed and only for the purposes of suggesting something before even starting the article. Redirects are cheap and if others think it's of some value, I won't stand in the way of that. Your explanation of why some people might search for something like that makes sense. It seems slightly odd to me, but a great many things do. Happy to support a redirect on that basis. Stalwart111 10:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a rather clear POVFORK and I don't see that there is any redeemable content included in this article that is not already covered in the other potential targets. Besides, according to this article, Hamas spokesman Salah al-Bardawil stated that "We pray to Allah that Sharon and all the Zionist leaders who committed massacres against our people to go to hell." Doesn't this mean that Hell should have been included among the proposals for an alternative Jewish homeland? Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect, possibly with minimal merger to Proposals for a Jewish state. This is obviously the right solution for a POV fork. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Proposals for a Jewish state. The subject is clearly notable and this can't be denied. When an article seems to advance a point, it doesn't mean it should be deleted - instead, a POV tag should be put in place. -Shalom11111 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Huygens

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

Insufficient notability for this project, fails WP:ARTIST. The award of officer of the order of the crown is one that appears to be routinely given to professional staff in government departments - a doctor, a translator. A 27-page booklet apparently about him was published in an edition of 400 copies in 1952. Apart from those, I've not been able to find anything resembling a reliable source that even mentions him, let alone confirms his notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources in google books or elsewhere (inc. the French version) which shows that WP:ARTIST is met. SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the Order of the Crown is awarded to military officers and civil servants automatically for length of service, awards to non-government-servants are discretionary. In this latter respect, Officer of the Order of the Crown seems to be pretty much equivalent to an OBE in the British Honours System. While an OBE would not qualify a recipient for automatic inclusion (that would require a CBE, the next grade up), it would be very likely that a British artist who had received an OBE would have an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2014 (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} 09:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lamplight

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

Non-notable album track, fails WP:SONG TheLongTone (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm0953188/bio

[2] ttp://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-15496670-rise-project-documentele-confidentiale-ale-afacerii-rosia-montana.htm

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Elam}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucía Parker}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Ankara}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Ankara}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Zionist proposals for alternative Jewish homelands}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Huygens}}