Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joe Decker (talk | contribs) at 03:22, 26 May 2014 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Zwicky 23). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 17 May 19 May >

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 Defer to merge discussion. per WP:IAR. No rationale for deletion (as opposed to merge, redirect, keep, etc.) was provided, no substantial argument for any hiding of content within the history (attacks, copyvio) is in evidence. Moreover, an ongoing merge discussion with greater participation and, in my estimation, a greater quantity of subject-specific participation continues. That discussion is better equipped, as a result, to determine the best way to improve the encyclopedia than this one, and as a result, I believe the encyclopedia will be improved by this close, and as a result, WP:IAR is invoked. Editors who have participated here are strongly encouraged to participate in the merge discussion. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical statistics

Mathematical statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was not originally AFD'd by me, but I'm completing the entry for it since that step wasn't performed.

This article topic has exactly the same scope as statistics, as the name itself is merely a synonym for the field. Even as a PhD candidate in statistics, I'm unaware of any concept in statistics that I would call "non-mathematical" statistics, as the entire field is based upon a rigorous measure theoretic probably framework (Probability axioms - particularly in relation to sigma-additivity). Literally any merely mediocre statistics doctoral program will require their students to do coursework in measure theory because it's required to fully understand the mechanics of tail events, distribution theory via Lebesgue integrals, and the like (see measure-theoretic probability theory for more info). In terms of the non-foundational content sometimes called "applied statistics," that sub-field too uses a rigorous mathematical framework to establish veracity of its methods. E.g., the most commonly used method of standard regression analysis (the least-squares method) requires a set of minimal conditions involving the sample/estimators/model, depending on the data (e.g., the simplest being the Gauss–Markov theorem), to avoid spurious results. The same is true for other foundational/basic estimation methods like method of moments and maximum likelihood estimation.

So, in a nutshell, I have no clue what content would belong in either mathematical statistics or statistics that doesn't also belong in the other. Unless there's some non-definitional aspect of mainstream‡ statistics which is not supported by a mathematical axiom or based upon a formal proof, then I suggest that mathematical statistics be WP:merged and deleted or just deleted.


NOTE:I'll concede this AFD if someone provides me just a SINGLE example of what I'm asserting doesn't exist.

‡ By mainstream, I mean something I would expect at least a handful of highly-rated statistics doctoral program teach to their PhD students; since, if a concept isn't taught to (and hence, known by) statisticians, then I'd argue that it's pretty hard to call it statistics. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

You've heard of "WP:merge and delete", right? I just did one yesterday at Diabetes and testosterone (follow the link for the deletion log).Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • note I've removed the non-standard formatting from your initial post; bold has a particular purpose in deletion discussions and so should not be used elsewhere in comments. 'big' is even more unusual and really not needed. If you want to make your point stand out then use clear concise language, not extra HTML formatting.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. To my understanding, bold is simply used to emphasize a position statement after a bullet point, which was why I delineated the proposal and the comments with the discussion header. I'm assuming the relevant policy for AFD is a WP:TPG subsection or one of its links, but could you link it for me? I'm assuming you know it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Italics can be used for emphasis: the relevant part of the TPG is 'Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions'. Using anything else such as big, bold and underline will tend to swamp other editors contributions, and should be avoided on talk pages. Bold especially has a particular use in deletion and other discussions, to highlight !votes and points of order. Using bold anywhere else makes it much harder to spot such !votes and other points.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this particular case there is almost no difference between merging and deleting, because the two articles are of such uneven length. Redirecting would be perfectly fine with me. Anyway, I've contributed in the merger discussion just now and I'm repeating here that I haven't seen any good arguments for keeping two articles separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Weather Star and turn into a redirect. I will leave the actual merge to the article editors, but the consensus is clear that this isn't ready for its own topic at this time, yet the term will still be a valid redirect and the information will be useful in the parent article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Star 4000

AfDs for this article:
Weather Star 4000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous discussion had no responses and was closed without prejudice against speedy re-nomination.

These articles have way too much trivial information and questionable use of YouTube videos as "sources". If there are notable details about the hardware that can be obtained from reliable sources, it could be covered in a much less in-depth fashion. (that FCC document on phasing out earlier models because they cannot produce aural alert tones would be a good place to start).

If this article is deleted/merged, I recommend deletion of all the other pages on WeatherStar units and the like as well. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Correct, AfD decisions are supposed to consider the strength of the arguments, not the number of "votes". Could you elaborate?
  • Keep I agree the article could use an extensive reworking; however, it seems likely that the subject will meet basic notability standards. Sort of bizarrely, that's 'keep per nom'. GoldenRing (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, why do you think it's "likely" to meet notability standards? Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note here that this is one of a series of similar articles about the various versions of the WeatherStar, all of which (especially the legacy/obsolete models) are roughly the same in terms of sourcing and trivia. Is there a reason that this particular version is being targeted for deletion while the others are not? Perhaps, if the amount of legitimate information in most of these articles is not enough to warrant separate articles, they could be integrated into the main WeatherStar article (as much of it is already there) and those articles can be redirected. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that the Youtube links should be added back onto this article because they are evidence of how a Weatherstar 4000 have operated (and have been displayed onto an audience member) from 1990 onto it's end (end of life date). Suppose if a reader were to question the function of the unit (ex. displaying various kinds of graphics) and wanted to see how it works on Youtube without any intervention from search results on Google. Also, if this was voted to be merged, I would agree on that part. | 19:48 (CDT/UTC-5), 29 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.122.101 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2014 — 75.53.122.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Unfortunately, we cannot do that. Firstly, they are effectively primary sources; our articles must depend on reliable, secondary sources. Secondly, we have rules against linking to copyrighted material. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly accurate. Notability must be established by reliable, independent sources, but there is no problem using primary sources for limited purposes such as establishing basic, uncontroversial facts. And linking to copyrighted material is fine; linking to copyright violations is the problem. It's not at all clear that the youtube videos are copyright violations. However, Wikipedia is not a manual and, from what I can make out, the videos are essentially tutorials. If someone's looking for a manual or a tutorial, Wikipedia is not the place to find it. GoldenRing (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into WeatherStar (with all other related articles). I had suggested this a few days ago. Even as a Weather Channel fan myself the technology is not known outside of the fanbase to warrant a single article for each generation, especially since most references link to sites against Wikipedia's policy, such as message boards, blogs, and copyrighted videos. All of the "headend locations" need to be gone too. Wikipedia is not a cable directory. Also, the timelines need to be summarized into a few brief paragraphs at best. MikeM2011 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no idea what's happened to the information given in this article over the five years I've watched it, but yeah it has gone rather trivial, even after the removal of the headend utilization list. If we can find official documents from TWC that could be used as encyclopedic information to keep the article up, then I'd say do that instead of just flat out delete an article on something that does actually exist. --ZLMedia 23:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ZLMedia, I found official TWC documents (links below), but these are not independent sources, so do not establish notability required for stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. Verifiable existence is insufficient; the essay Existence ≠ Notability discusses this. Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WeatherStar per MikeM2011. Once the trivia is removed there is no need for a separate article. --Bejnar (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero independent reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability of the subject. The references to amateur videoclips of WS4000 output do not constitute reliable sources, in my opinion, and even if they are, should not establish notability of the subject. Sources considered:
  • [Apparently self-published:] Alan Fields (1995). Partly Sunny: The Weather Junkie's Guide to Outsmarting the Weather. Ingram Publisher Services. ISBN 978-0-9626556-5-4.
  • [Recorded presentation, dubious reliability:] "The WeatherSTAR 4000 Emulator for Quasi-Operational Dissemination of Real-time Weather Data
  • [Brief mention:] "Low-cost "Weather Star"". Communications Engineering Digest. International Thomson Communications, Volume 19, Issues 7-13. 1993. p. 73. ... The new, low-cost model called the Weather Star Jr. will render forecasts in videotext (instead of the color graphics, animation, local weather radar and other visual effects available with the larger Weather Star 4000). As a result, the scaled-down model will be 'significantly less expensive' than the Weather Star 4000, company officials say.
  • [TWC's documentation:] "The Weather Channel Current Conditions". The Weather Channel. Archived from the original on 2002-11-02. (Contains links to installation guide, product guide, release notes, and FAQ.)
--Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by TomStar81 (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan sheraz

Arslan sheraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in the reliable sources found to establish notability of the subject. It fails, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Houssein

Houssein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears to a non-notable youtube user, strongly suspect article is promotional in nature. Extremely poorly sourced article depending on non-reliable primary material. Author appears to have COI with subject at the very least, might actually be an autobiography. Did try to speedy but a brand new account appeared and removed the tag, hence the need to bring this to AFD. Dolescum (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This is not an autobiography, we are not linked to Houssein, however did request information from him. Regarding the statement 'non-notable youtube user', Houssein is currently working along side television star David Grant and performing live at VidCon, as noted on VidCon's website. As well as being a star in 3 WestEnd musicals. He is also scheduled to perform live at VidCon 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGSChannel (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have since been added, including: BBC, VidCon and The Sound Of Music UK Tour website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGSChannel (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that on 30 Decemember 2013 you attempted to create the article "PurneyGurneyStudios", which was itself subsequently speedied. This is recorded in the article under discussion as an inactive youtube account of it's subject and is clearly what the "PGS" in your username stands for. You clearly DO have some connection with the subject and to claim otherwise is risible. Dolescum (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PGS in my name is linked to PuneyGuneyStudios, as i am a follower of PuneyGuneyStudios, and also it is a software i use called "PGS Software". I don't think it is fair to make assumptions, in an attempt to link me with Houssein. http://www.pgs-soft.com/en — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGSChannel (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the article being promotional. In what way is the article supposed to promote Houssein, other than a website link? A lot of information has been added to the article regarding; personal life, internet career and published singles.--PGSChannel (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently trying to add more reliable sources, however we have noted that there are many other personalities on Wikipedia with little sources, and mostly sources from YouTube,--Stephenv14 (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephenv14: Just because other articles may not meet Wikipedia guidelines doesn't mean that this article should be kept. We can't lower our standards for one article because another article doesn't meet them either. If you believe other articles don't meet our notability guidelines, you are free to also bring those up for discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning of this topic sources from the BBC, VidCon, GetSurrey, The Daily Mail, News.BBC, RankZoo, SocialBlade, VEVO, iTunes, TicketMaster, The Sound Of Music UK Tour, Yahoo and Mivzakon have been added, and we will continue to add more sources. --Stephenv14 (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have also removed "further reading" as we agree this was not acceptable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. --Stephenv14 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing notability standards. Most sources are not from reliable, third-party sources, and/or only mention Houssein in passing. Two "big" sources listed above, BBC and Daily Mail, do not help at all for notability as they only mention Houssein in passing with no reference to his career. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hamster's rationale. I couldn't put it much better myself. None of the sources on the article are usable to show notability, as they're mostly primary (WP:PRIMARY) or don't mention Houssein at all. The BBC article seems to actually be about his father, Ramadan Güney. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by someone being related to a notable person (alive or dead) and as far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS goes, we do not keep articles on the basis that other YT personalities have articles. They might either pass notability guidelines in ways that this article doesn't or they just haven't been nominated for deletion yet. To put it bluntly, Houssein is not notable enough to merit an article at this point in time, regardless of how many unusable sources are added to the article. Adding tons of links doesn't give the appearance of notability and in this instance, actually looks more like WP:CITESPAM or WP:LINKSPAM in general. I mean no offense by that, I'm mostly saying this because in most instances of this it does more to harm than it does to help. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @SuperHamster: and @Tokyogirl79: for your opinions. If Houssein was to become more well-known, particularly in mainstream media, would we be able to recreate the page with more credible sources?--PGSChannel (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PGSChannel: Yes, of course, assuming there is enough coverage to meet our notabilty guidelines. Note, though, that if you are associated with Houssein, you would have a conflict of interest, in which case I would suggest creating the article in the draftspace and then having it reviewed for both neutrality and notability before getting it moved to the article space (which I would actually do regardless of a conflict of interest). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperHamster: Ok, well thank you very much for your help.--PGSChannel (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can be redirected at editorial discretion.  Sandstein  19:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sonic the Hedgehog comic book characters

List of Sonic the Hedgehog comic book characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Above all else, this article is so hopelessly unsalvageable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. WP:MOSFICT calls for a real-world perspective on fictional content. This list is 113,797 bytes long, and virtually all of it is from an "in-universe" perspective. There are also notability concerns. User:Sergecross73 noted in 2012 on the talk page that this list may fail WP:GNG. Per WP:LISTN, a list topic is notable if the elements have been discussed as a set by independent reliable sources. The article does not currently evidence this and a cursory Google search turns up only sources about the comic series as a whole--not on the characters specifically. Mz7 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd also be open to redirecting the page. However, if it is to be redirected, the article should be deleted first, then redirected, to prevent the content from being recreated in the future. Mz7 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and/or Delete - As mentioned above, I tried cleaning the article up back in 2012, but could only trim the garbage out, I couldn't find any sources to add. I tried to delete the article through a PROD, but it was challenged with an empty "sounds notable" type comment and then I just moved on to other things. Anyways, there's a serious lack of third party sources and out-of-universe content. I'd be okay with a redirect though because it could be made someday if a "retrospective" article or two were to be written someday. (It usually doesn't take a whole lot to justify a list of characters article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and/or Delete Given how big the Sonic franchise is, we can reasonably expect a list of characters article even if the characters w/o articles would fail the GNG. It's a reasonable thing to have. But the level of detail here for just one expanded-universe version would be far too much and would require the needed support of secondary sources to justify and I just don't see that happening. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and/or Delete - completely agree with nomination and User:Sergecross73. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe this page is salvageable, and agree with User:Masem points on notability. Significant clean-up is required, so the option to delete the page and start again is an attractive option, but probably not preferable to simply fixing the offending content. It would likely take more time and effort to create a new article than fix-up this existing article, and risks falling into the same problems that exist currently. A lot of the problems currently in this article appear to stem from a lack of usage of the Talk Page function, for example the page length could be significantly reduced if a consensus on what characters are significant enough to be mentioned was implemented.MegaMuffinMan (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can concede to the notability - as Sergecross mentions, notability of an independent character list is not that difficult to establish. However, the problem isn't the length of this page. While cleanup is generally preferable to deletion when there is a portion of fixable content, the problem here is that the entire page falls under the category of "offending content", because each description is only an in-universe description of each character, with little regards to real world production and impact. To make this list encyclopedic and conforming to WP:MOSFICT, the entire article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Mz7 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Julian Assange. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of works about Julian Assange

List of works about Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A laundry list of WikiCrimes that at no point explains how it meets WP:GNG. If anything can be salvaged it should be merged into Julian Assange. Launchballer 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I received a notice of the nomination for deletion of this List. it says: “The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern”, but all I see here is a reference to WP:GNG which is a general introduction and not one specific to Lists. Can you please point me to specific policies and guidelines which are of concern in this particular case? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the article fails WP:GNG.--Launchballer 14:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is an optional requirement, in particular for something like a Bibliography. How does one apply GNG to a bibliography, other than "because the rules say" - it's not logical and is arbitrary. Most Bibliographies would fail GNG. Per WP:CFORK, we often fork content when it makes practical sense. If it makes sense here or not I don't know, but CFORK is really the guideline we should be discussing. -- GreenC 16:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, though I take the view that as half the content already exists in the article, there isn't enough for a stand-alone list.--Launchballer 17:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Bazaar

Russian Bazaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the five references in the article, one is a deadlink and three are to the Russian Bazaar itself. Therefore, I am not seeing a case for notability here pbp 21:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per above - sngle original source as main reference to article, no evidence availabile on internet as to it being noteable as per WP:NOTE seems clear cut to me on the evidence available. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. I'm having trouble finding any coverage in reliable sources, beyond the one New York Times ref in the article. I tend towards keeping articles about newspapers, as I think it's valuable for Wikipedia to provide coverage of its own sources, or potential sources, but unless independent reliable sources can be found this can't be kept. Pburka (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am sympathetic to Pburka's reluctance, and have spent a fair bit of time trying to look for something, anything, that would get us the second half of WP:GNG, over and above the NYT mention. One highbeam article has a mention, but sourced to a journalist from the paper. What convinced me toward deletion was that not a single library save the Library of Congress claims to collect this newspaper, per WorldCat. I also tried the usual searches on Gweb, Gbooks, Gscholar, and Highbeam. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Flynn

Shannon Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could find no significant coverage in third party sources to show subject meets WP:GNG NeilN talk to me 21:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a suitable source. Neither is an interview.SillyPotatoe (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete: Even though I agree that at the minute this article doesn't match the Wikipedia guidelines, I think that if we put a notice up on the article or the talk page asking people to help tidy it up, it can be made to match the guidelines. Also, where would we put the information that we have here (about all of the programmes she has been in) if we deleted the article? Ilovethecbbcarticles (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFD's are generally seen as notices that the article must be improved during the course of the AFD or be deleted. It's been a week - have you found any sources that show notability? --NeilN talk to me 13:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Davey2010teenagers also sometimes watch some shows on cbbc like Friday DownloadSillyPotatoe (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Connected Series 2

The Connected Series 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well the only notable thing is how poorly it did-other then that this seems like an AFD. Wgolf (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willie McGee (boxer)

Willie McGee (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Mathis

Winston Mathis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodarte

Rodarte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising The Banner talk 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (but maybe WP:BLOWITUP). Advertising? Horribly so, and those responsible should receive 1000 lashes with a trout. But the brand itself is notable, I think, having been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are some ridiculous claims in the article, like the suggestion that "x celebrity is a fan of the brand" because she happened to wear one of the company's dresses to an award ceremony once. Total rubbish. Stalwart111 23:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to me that what is listed on this page is a list or series of events/ records that make up a brand's history. If people use Wikipedia as a source and timeline for events/people/places, and this reads just like every entry I read about a film's trajectory or even the timeline of a tech company. Aside from the ridiculous quote listed above, I don't see much else that is not factual information based in events and perhaps timeline highlights for the brand itself.? user: ParisTexas1980 — Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's mostly non-WP:MOS-compliant advertispam. Stalwart111 03:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over advocate violence? It suggests that sometimes articles about notable subjects are created by editors less familiar with our manuals of style and that sometimes there would be more effort involved in fixing those articles than in starting over again. It doesn't advocate beating those editors to death with a rock. In fact in my experience, that process can be a great learning opportunity for new editors who saw a need (for a new article) but didn't quite know how to fill that gap. Stalwart111 23:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major brand with plenty of reliable sources. Don't think it's so bad as to merit deletion for a clean-slate rewrite -- current references etc. could be useful to future editors. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. slakr\ talk / 02:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Beasley

William Beasley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Reason was "Does not appear notable; only given claim to notability is an amateur competition." Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Found a reference here, so may be more to be fleshed out. it must also be noted that "amateur" in the late 1800s does not carry the same connotations as today. I'd like to ping wikiproject horse racing and have the UK/Irish members there comment before a final decision is reached. Montanabw(talk) 03:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, even in the 20th century, taking part in a sporting event as an amateur - playing for the love of the game - was considered to be more honourable than being paid to do it. For example, for many years it was the unwritten rule in cricket that the players of a team could be either amateur (W. G. Grace, one of the greatest cricketers ever, was always an amateur) or professional as they chose - but the captain of the team was traditionally an amateur. Indeed, some national sides like England (until 1952), or county sides like Yorkshire (until 1959), would refuse the captaincy to certain eminently suitable players simply because they would not give up professionalism. Cricket retained the distinction between amateurs and professionals right down to 1962. Another example: as recently as 1995, the sport of Rugby Union Football removed their erstwhile "Declaration of Amateurism" from the rule book, which read, in full, "The game is an amateur game. No one is allowed to seek or to receive payment or other material reward for taking part in the game." It had been the second rule in the book - coming only after "Object of the Game". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly doubt Champion Irish Amateur Jockey is/never was a well-known or significant award. Google Books has a single result (a trivial mention in Modern Irish lives), and Google provides just 19 results, none of them appearing minimally significant. Cavarrone 14:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being Champion Amateur Jockey in Ireland may not garner much internet coverage but it is one of the few noteworthy awards within the sport. Finnegas (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said that there is inadequate verification. I might guess that no further evidence will be found, but that is not what I said. --Bejnar (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mention in his brother's obituary does not prove notability--nor does anything else in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.162.5 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. No reason to delete this article based on a 21st century bias toward electronic sources. That said, I did find this. Does that help? Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For a modern subject, I would be inclined to say there are insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, but for historical figure, sources are scarcer and harder to find, so the single item in The Sydney Mail, especially considering it's an Australian newspaper writing about an Irish rider, strikes me as sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanban Tool

Kanban Tool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software (per GNG/CORPDEPTH). Insufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources available. Almost exclusively edited by SPAs (including two different ones that removed CSD tags). — Rhododendrites talk |  20:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close debate and merge - the suggestion to merge is a common outcome for subsidiaries, and AfD is not the proper forum any more. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearian: - I'm not clear on this. It sounds like you're calling the AfD invalid as a request to merge, but it's not. Nor is merge the only logical avenue (or even a desired outcome). It isn't a subsidiary of any other organization['s article] as far as I can tell, but an application to help with the kanban method, AfDed just as I would for Bob's graphic design app rather than merge into graphic design. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. --— Rhododendrites talk |  17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically Rhododendrites is right that whether a redirect is to be kept or not is still open for discussion, and is a proper subject for AFD, but I think Bearian is clear that B supports merger and redirect of this without deletion. Looking at the material in the article, including this review of Kanban software development tools (which includes review of the Kanban Tool one among others), i think it has pretty valid material worth keeping. The graphic provided in this article seems especially helpful to use at the merge target article as one example of a visual aid (visual obviousness is core concept in the manufacturing kanban analogy), and I think it would be fine to explicitly mention the "Kanban Tool" company there and some other tool-providers in the article and/or as external links. I don't think it gives undue promotion to the Kanban Tool company to leave a redirect behind; it is possible in the future that a separate article on it would be justified, and a redirect just keeps the edit history. --doncram 17:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern re: Bearian is that it seems like he's making a procedural point, which, since I don't understand what basis it has is cause for pause coming from an admin (as someone likely more knowledgeable than I in certain policy nuance as well as someone who can act on said policy).
        • As far as notability, I think our standards for reliable sources and what degree of sourcing is sufficient just differ. That toolsjournal.com "review" (scare quotes because it appears to be a couple sentences of promotional copy in a list of 15 on a website of generally dubious reliability) would not, as far as I'm concerned, justify mentioning anywhere except maybe in a long list with several of these other relevant programs that are equally not notable. Merge assumes more than mentioning the name "Kanban Tool." It implies taking the content of one article and merging it into the content of another -- which would be undue. I have no doubt anybody with a little marketing savvy can get a piece of software listed at some industry software "community site" (as toolsjournal calls itself). --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The current refs are a blog, an incidental mention, and the killerstartups interview which is quite brief and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search reveals additional incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. A merge is not appropriate in this case because there is nothing to merge. Kanban Tool is not a subsidiary of Kanban (development), and software entries are typically removed from list and overview articles (with the exception of parent company articles) when the software is not notable enough to have a standalone page.Dialectric (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandile Nzuza

Sandile Nzuza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail notability criteria for artists. Basically he's a talented promising young artist not yet out of art college. Some coverage used as cites, but is it sufficient? I doubt it at this point, much as I wish Sandile Nzuza continued success. Mabalu (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability doesn't come from a listing by a commercial gallery selling the artist's work, and l see no evidence that he meets WP:ARTIST. Language like claims that his "creative ability and technical genius has been apparent making him stand out from the crowd" indicate that the purpose of this article is promotional. An extensive unreferenced quotation from the artist violates policy. Perhaps some day, this artist will be notable, but not yet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Silver

AfDs for this article:
Selena Silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying nonscene awards, only a single nomination (if that). CAVR Awards are, by established consensus, not notable and do not contribute to establishing notability. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Survived most recent AFD due to scene award noms, which no longer satisfy PORNBIO requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caressa Savage

Caressa Savage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards or nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Reported mainstream appearances are borderline at best, generally do not involve notable projects; and there is no evidence or sourcing for the claim that the subject's were substantial enough to meet the "featured" requirement of PORNBIO rather than being minor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Before we get carried away with any discussion and/or debate, let review PORNBIO as it applies to Miss Savage. First off, as she's retired so its unlikely that she'll be winning any additional awards unless she returns to porn. Second, she's not a Hall of Fame member, but going by her work history on IAFD she does appear to be one of the earlier performers that predominantly appeared in lesbian or "girl/girl" videos with regard to "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre". BUT, we'd need a source for that, not just my "eyeball analysis". So third, that leaves us with "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media". The New york Times reviewed one of the documentaries she was in [1] and the other two, though not well covered do seem legitimate in terms of not being "industry promo", actually the opposite. That said, there is little information about Miss Savage in general. Even AVN, XBIZ, and AEBN are light on info about her. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Times did not review the documentary mentioned above; the linked "review" comes from the allmovie guide. No indication that the doc is notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well Wolfie, I think its nice that the summary is on Allmovie.com as well.[2] Isn't it great that the NY Times agrees with Allmovie's overview and endorses it by posting it on their website. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Scalhotrod, Savage is an award winning girl/girl only performer, so she passes WP:PORNBIO criteria #2. Lets not forget that Savage did porn in the 90's, long before the Girl/Girl Performer of the Year category was created by AVN and XBIZ in 2014. So, it's not fair to completely disregard wins for scene-related and ensemble categories when that is the only thing the recipient was eligible for. If the article isn't kept, it should at least be userfied because there is still a possibility that she will be inducted into the AVN or XRCO Hall of Fame, even if she is retired. Jasmin St. Claire for example, was inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame 10 years after retiring. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phony arguments, Rebecca. Despite what you say now, "girl/girl only" performers were generally eligible for, nominated for, and sometimes won qualifying awards under PORNBIO. And there's no case for the PORNBIO 2 argument, given that the "trend-setting" scenes she won awards for were in volumes 13 and 16 of a series. There might be a case, say, if volume 1 was involved. And, as usual, you produce absolutely no sourcing or evidence to back up your claims. If you think the article subject is a likely candidate for an industry hall of fame, some independent, third-party commentary is needed, rather than your own pulled-from-the-air PR notions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phony counter argument, Wolfie Your assertions are fairly easy to dismiss since all you did was a cursory review of her work on IAFD. I can't see how which volume numbers of the series has any relevance when its the fact that she won awards for girl/girl scenes that indicates her contribution to the genre. Furthermore, out of 197 credits, 145 of them are for "LezOnly" or girl/girl, nearly 3/4's of her work is devoted to ONE genre. Looks significant to me... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, Delete. Although I accept the point made above that the Girl/Girl Performer of the Year category was created only recently, we are not psychics, and thus cannot guess who would have won such an award in 1997 or 1999. Thus, the only awards that this person has won are ensemble ones, and thus fail (on current policy guidelines) to create enough notability. If more evidence could be produced to support the claim that she has made an important contribution to the "girl/girl" genre I might be persuaded otherwise, but for now this person seems to fall short of our criteria for notability. RomanSpa (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spa, I can appreciate your stance, but the change to no longer accept ensemble awards is recent as well, within the last few months. Since then there have been a slew of PORN article deletions, mostly for new actresses. That said, I'd like to suggest that we not be in such a hurry to delete the article for an industry veteran from the 90's and 2000's. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if you'd told me when I first signed up as an editor of Wikipedia that I would one day be carefully discussing and analysing an article like this, I'd have been incredulous. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Wikipedia works in mysterious ways... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or per Rebecca1990's recommendation Userfy - Becs makes a good point about having a shot at being inducted into a HoF. I can understand the deletions due to the PORN BIO change for newer actresses, but this is a notable industry veteran. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject here appears to have "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" per her appearances in 3 documentaries, on The Jerry Springer Show, and in the book "Top Porn Stars Sex Tips and Tricks".
Note: As for the "change to no longer accept ensemble awards", while I don't necessarily agree with that change in the past, that change to PORNBIO was made a few years ago. Guy1890 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for the confusion on my part Guy. You are correct, it was the deletion of Award Nomination's from PORNBIO that was changed recently. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - OK, just when I thought I was off my nut for thinking that a star as old as Savage could return to the industry, I read this about Karen Summer's return. She's an earlier vintage than Savage, go figure... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Community gardens in Nebraska. Number 57 11:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee Community Garden

Dundee Community Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. One local newspaper story does not make significant discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. GoldenRing (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously did negate that comment, which asserted "all" references were of one type. --doncram 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the 2nd Keep vote by ScottHW. You're welcome to comment multiple times, but voting just once, is what's done here in AFD process. --doncram 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems locally significant, I don't see wider coverage that would make it notable for an encyclopaedia. otherwise all community gardens will end up in WP. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe most/many of them will end up in WP; by their nature they are public nonprofit beneficial entities that engage the community and will tend to have coverage. Like museums, most of which are Wikipedia-notable. I do think now is a good time to start developing big lists of them, with or without separate articles at first. This one is fine by me. --02:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
"Like museums, most of which are Wikipedia-notable" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? wp:otherstuffexists states "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Museums are good to have covered, in general. I think community gardens are too, and we should be consistent, and consistency is a valid goal for editing in Wikipedia. --doncram 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google web search for ("dundee community garden" omaha) turned up no significant coverage in media outside the Omaha area. A Google News search for the same terms produced nothing at all; the older material cited in the article was caught by the first search, so I don't think we're missing anything significant.
We don't appear to have a specific set of guidelines for community gardens as places. However, if we regard DCG as an organization—and much of the article is given over to treating it as such, discussing its 501(c)(3) status, its funding, and its board of directors—then it seems to fail notability under WP:AUD: "[A]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
Notability guidelines in other areas also suggest that purely local coverage is insufficient to establish notability; for instance, WP:GEOSCOPE states that "[a]n event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." Absent significant coverage from media outside the Omaha metro, I'm afraid that we don't have notability. Ammodramus (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that wp:AUD is relevant, but isn't coverage here regional? I do agree there's a judgment call involved about whether Omaha, Nebraska-area coverage is "regional", and qualifies. But Omaha is apparently (per Wikipedia): "the 60th-largest metropolitan area in the United States in 2013 with an estimated population of 895,151 residing in eight counties." That population is bigger than 87 out of 236 nations in the world. The Omaha World-Herald, per Wikipedia, is a notable paper serving Nebraska and Iowa, and is unusual for its high penetration rate, its ownership by Berkshire Hathaway (if BH's purchase did go through?), and being "the only remaining major metropolitan newspaper in the United States to publish both morning and afternoon editions." And KETV is an ABC regional TV station serving a big area.
On balance, I think that regional coverage is enough, and this is a relatively new and vibrant entity with momentum (with its big carrot in parades, and the bike tour, and its new ownership of the site and its 501c3 status and its board) and ScottHW has done a good job developing the article, and there should be more coverage emerging. And there should be more even treatment of community gardens in Wikipedia, but there is so little coverage that specific criteria aren't clear. So, I say KEEP this for now, and if there is not further coverage within 1 year, i will personally stand aside if someone wants to revisit and AFD this again. --doncram 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"population is bigger than 87 out of 236 nations in the world" does not elevate the area to a greater than nation status. That is a weak argument. Does Omaha-Nebraska have a seat at the United Nations? What is relevant is the 60th-largest metropolitan area in the United States which doesn't make it a major city.LibStar (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Omaha World-Herald presents state, national, and international news, much of its material can only be regarded as local reportage. For example, it runs articles on many local businesses, including a review of a local bar and one of a local restaurant every week. If we regard coverage by the OWH as establishing notability, then each of these hundreds of local businesses could be the subject of a WP article. These include Omaha's first Chick-fil-A location, which was the subject of much breathless coverage by the OWH around the time of its opening.
The phrasing of WP:AUD refers to "local media, or media of limited interest and circulation". The disjunction suggests that a large (i.e., not "limited") circulation isn't enough: the medium must be non-local as well as widely read. This seems to be corroborated by WP:GEOSCOPE, which denies notability to events "reported only by the media within the immediate region", with no exception for local media with large circulations. Ammodramus (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't grok how "the medium must be non-local as well as widely read" applies; it comes down to whether you think Omaha region is big enough to count as a region for purposes of wp:AUD or not. Point taken about coverage of purely local coverage being included in OWH...but also if the OWH region is big enough then the coverage could be viewed as transformative in a way. Like for example a human interest type story in the New York Times about a local restaurant owner making good, or whatever, seems to bring some real importance to the subject. Since few New Yorkers will ever pass by that local business, it must be the case that the New York Times coverage is establishing some higher importance. Truly local coverage which should not be viewed as establishing notability is the small-town newspaper type coverage merely serving role of providing publicity for local businesses and advertisers. You can, and do, have a different view on whether OWH coverage of Dundee Community Garden is significant enough; i think it is truly of interest, not mere publicity serving the group. --doncram 16:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I further don't get some distinctions that Ammodramus is trying to make, but Ammodramus takes offense on behalf of small town journalists by my comment above. Umm... i agreed with Ammodramus that some local coverage, of the type merely serving role of providing publicity, doesn't count as much for Wikipedia-notability. I observe that small town newspapers have different kinds of articles, some being sort of puff pieces as Ammodramus says. But I did not say all small town newspaper coverage was of that type, and in particular I said the OWH coverage of Dundee rose above that. The coverage is of interest and not simply publicity (and a community garden is not a business and does not need publicity particularly). I think he projected that I implied a generalization that i did not, but anyhow i strike the comment. Whatever. --doncram 04:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This newly-created article doesn't seem to be any better sourced than the one currently under discussion: one of the two sources cited in its current version is decidedly not independent, and the other is a short TV news story about a bike ride associated with community gardens, almost entirely about the event rather than about the gardens. If it came up for AfD, my first inclination, based on the citations in the article, would be to support deletion (although I'd have to dig for sources myself before !voting). Candle, can you provide better sources? I'd be more inclined to support a merge if the target article wasn't itself a potential AfD candidate. Ammodramus (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and you shall receive: seven empty city lots to be turned into community gardens, City planning document, local award, News story on city council vote for community garden, news story on a community garden makeover, story on celebration of community gardens and another story on a community garden program in Omaha. Seems to be kind of a big deal in Omaha. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate the discussion about this article, and the reasoning behind various points of view. Four things stand out.
- The initial point about reliable references has been well addressed. That should have been done long ago, so the "peer editing" process worked like a charm. Wikipedia FTW. Actually... I guess it maybe should have happened before this was listed as AfD.
- The "notability" of the Omaha World Herald seems to be relevant to this discussion, but also a distinct side issue. Whether OWH references meet the threshold for "Notability" should be an ongoing discussion. Is there some audience size, or media market size, that makes a newspaper "Notable"? Some media conglomerate ownership status? Or affiliation, a la TV local network affiliates? It seems unfair to use that contentious topic against the many references that have been given for this article, particularly since several of the references for this article are NOT from OWH.
- It has been suggested that this article might not meet the Notability criteria for an Organization. Any Community Garden is an amalgamation of physical location, garden members, and oversight organization/board of directors, among other things. I feel that this article could be improved to focus more on the garden itself, and that the incorporated 501c3 non-profit organization is de-emphasized and made a specific sub-section. In this spirit, I will work to make such changes.
- Regarding idea of merging this article into a List of gardens within the city (or state), Dundee is a particularly outstanding garden, even compared to other similar organizations. I added another reference that states this explicitly. I agree such a List would be beneficial, and will gladly work to edit and improve that list. However, much like Parks in Omaha, Nebraska, some of the parks in the list are article-worthy in their own right. DCG could be added to the list, but based in particular prominence, I feel it should remain its own article.
ScottHW (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the concern about the Omaha World Herald is not its notability but its reliability. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator (whom also happens to be me), So speedy keep per WP:SNOW and close per IAR. kelapstick(bainuu) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Lions

Rugby Lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Team plays in the Midlands 5 West (South), which is a Level 10 English Rugby Union League. Now I don't know much about Rugby, but that doesn't sound very high. The Lions are the only team in the league to have a Wikipedia Page, and the entire team is made up of links to people with similar names or DAB pages, save for the "notable players" that have moved up through the ranks. kelapstick(bainuu) 18:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – look at their history. Notably club per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs 2011–12 season, the Lions won the National League 3 Midlands Hamish59 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable under project notability and under WP:GNG as has multiple sources available. Keith D (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BETT

BETT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Media Distribution

American Media Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about a media company, created by an editor with a likely COI. I was unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 19:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails notability because they operate behind the scenes. One look around the net, the BBB and other sources in the field verify their existence. they have the second largest reporter pool in the world. You need to dig a bit deeper. No one writes articles about these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.184.2 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is false to say that "the onus is on the article creator to provide sourcing". This is not an adversarial process, it is a consensus-building process; we assess whether a subject meets the notability guidelines, not whether a particular person has provided evidence to support notability. That said, I'm not seeing sources that establish notability. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine H2O

Imagine H2O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not enough reporting from independent sources, and those are not in much depth. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 – NorthAmerica1000 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of superhero productions created by Toei. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toei 100 Great Hero Super Fight

Toei 100 Great Hero Super Fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A completely non-notable direct-to-video movie from the 1980s in Japan. There are no sources to support its notability other than showing it existed. There were previously citations on the article, but they were merely used to show that a particular entry on the list had an English language title. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - as above. I am persuaded by the suggestion that the title is an unlikely search term but the article does seem to have had at least some page views since creation (even if we disregard the spike toward the start which likely related to creation). I don't know... we certainly shouldn't have an article but I'm inclined to think a redirect would be okay. We can always delete that later if it turns out not to be of any use. Stalwart111 22:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal

AfDs for this article:
Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've searched and only found a lot of YouTube videos and very little obviously about this person, but as he seems to be considered a saint and someone likely to be held in high esteem, and obviously existed, I thought it was more appropriate to bring this to discussion as a mark of respect to his claimed status than simply speedying it. Mabalu (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had I realised this was a former delete, I would certainly have speedied. Mabalu (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject failed a notability check last time, and the subject still seems to fail a notability check this time. The article shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Number 57 13:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia S. Fontaines

Anastasia S. Fontaines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. A couple of the references cannot be found in the online versions of the magazines so it's hard to know whether, e.g., the Marie Claire article is actually primarily about Fontaines, but the sources that can be checked online do not show sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a new article created by a new editor so I have devoted some time to trying to find sources and improving the article instead of nominating it for deletion; sadly, I have been unsuccessful. bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as references go, I stand by my opinion that there is not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The article's author is making contradictory claims (probably based on not understanding how references work) on my user talk page, but has not been able to produce any actual evidence of notability: there are a couple of Hungarian-language articles written by a freelance journalist for a couple of different magazines, which mention the actress (such as one article where she presents her favourite recipe), and a couple of radio interviews for a minor radio station. That is not significant coverage. As for WP:NACTOR, there is no claim that it is met, as there are only minor roles. --bonadea contributions talk 16:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete insufficient evidence to meet WP:BIO or NACTOR LibStar (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Written by a single-purpose account, which seems to belong to the same person, in other words autobiography. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 23:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhjir (company)

Nakhjir (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's tough to verify the sources as many are in Arabic Persian, but couldn't find anything significant beyond this page and basic company related stuff in Google Books. As it's not totally unambiguously promotional and a couple of the sources seem to possibly not be primary I'm bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise very sincerely for getting the language wrong as it has been pointed out that the sources are in Persian. That does not mean they are invalid sources, but the references in the article at present are: 1) Company's About Us page. 2) Company website. 3) Currently unavailable, server not found. 4) According to Google Translate these are search results, this reference is not about the company but is used to confirm the translation of the name. 5) Search results showing store locations in Europe - for OPTICIANS? 6) Company website. 7) Company website. Where are verifiable, independent sources for this company? Mabalu (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add persian sources in farsi wikipedia then build english info for that?we can publish extra references about company! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.26.172 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate Persian language sources would be absolutely acceptable, if an unrelated third party who can read Persian is able to verify them. However, they need to be published/written by people who are independent to the company, and not reprints of the company's own press releases or promotional material. Mabalu (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added more information and sources about page!please see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooreya 2008 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica1000 06:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with thanks to participants for improving the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vazhayila

Vazhayila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be about some place. Normally I don't nominate these articles for deletion (in fact, I'm reluctant to nominate this one), as I believe that populated places are notable, but the article is so poorly written it's better to just start all over. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Atters" Attree

Michael "Atters" Attree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person may not meet the notability threshold for Wikipedia; of the references in the article, the majority are self-published or closely connected to the subject. The WP:ADVERT, COI and autobiography problems don't help either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There are 30 citations here. Even if some of them could be said to have some self interest, firstly that is no reason to remove them (it's a reason to not rely on them, which is different), secondly there are still adequate cites that do meet WP:RS to pass WP:N.
Yet again. not all sources are required to meet our highest standards. We can use other sources in addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — (agree with the above, plus...) some of these sources are of an unusually high prominence for notability to come into question; i.e. major newspapers and magazines; it's also worth noting that the references provided span a number of years, indicating protracted notability. It's appropriate that we are cautious of any autobiographical or promotional elements, but that should encourage clean-up rather than be used to justify deletion of an article whose subject otherwise meets WP:GNG and is verifiable. – Kieran T (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e deckertalk 17:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitoor

Fitoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article provides no information regarding the principal photography of the film. It's a WP:TOOSOON case. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDAFD: Fitoor Abhishek Kapoor Siddharth Roy Kapur Katrina Kaif Aditya Roy Kapur
(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)
(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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My personal view of WP:TOOSOON is in-line with Schmidt's. Not sure if the film as gone into principal shooting yet, but its coverage in reliable sources makes it pass WP:GNG in my eyes. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Itay Paz

Itay Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of coverage in independent sources leads me to believe the subject is not notable enough for an article at the present time. Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaarly

Zaarly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this company meets WP:NCORP. The secondary sources are reports about the company from 2011 when it was a startup, and I can't find anything more recent. The fact that the official website now belongs to a house cleaning service by the same name doesn't do much to strengthen its claims to notability. In addition, the article text is almost entirely promotional. bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The housecleaning may just be a currently featured service? (Though it doesn't seem easy to get past that and see other services) The "About Zaarly" maerial further down the webpage has a better match to the article text. I did find one more recent source, an article from the Washington Post covering the emerging field but using Zaarly as an example ([15], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.). AllyD (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do think that WP:NCORP is satisfied by the secondary sources present in the article where the primary topic is Zaarly. I do not think it matters that the 2ndary sources are from 2011, notability is not transient, so if it satisfied NCORP in 2011, it still does. I've done some copyediting to the citations to make it a little more apparent they are non-trivial news items; I also added the WikiProject Companies banner to the talk page so it appears in that groups alerting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 23:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dunlap

Jim Dunlap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for nine years.

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this poet in order to evidence notability under WP:BASIC. Additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e deckertalk 03:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 23:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Fekkai

Frédéric Fekkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has vacillated between being a stub and puffery since its inception. Horse Badorties (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wouldn't go quite THAT far! - but yes, definitely a bit better known than yer usual salon stylist. Mabalu (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad bin Khalid Al Thani

Hamad bin Khalid Al Thani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, previously unsourced save to random web sites. Can't verify much if anything here, there's no ar.wiki article on the fellow (at least under معالي سعادة الامير حمد بن خالد بن حمد بن عبد الله آل ثاني ), and i can't verify the signficant claim to notability here -- chief of the Qatar police force, everything else is either a bit promotional or genealogical cruft. But additional sources--even verification of being chief of the Qatari police in a reliable source, would be of assistance here. Thanks. j⚛e deckertalk 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He does seem to be notable. The police in Qatar are under the Ministry of Interior. It would appear that they are under Director General of Public Security Staff in Qatar which is currently Maj. Gen. Saad bin Jassim al Khulaifi. ( here). I don't know what that says about the status of a police chief. Hamad's fuller name is "Hamad bin Khalid bin Hamad bin Abdullah Al Thani". Hamad's father's Wikipedia article ar:خالد بن حمد بن عبد الله آل ثاني (Khalid bin Hamad bin Abdullah Al Thani) says that the son Hamad was "Adjutant General of Police" before entering commerce, but provides no years. Now an article at wikimapia this page agrees with his birth year and place (city of Al Rayyan in 1952), but says Hamad was Deputy Commander of the Armed Forces 1973-1978 and Police chief, 1978-1988; which is at variance with our article. Here is an obituary from the Aji Network of 16 September 2012 for Hamad bin Khalid bin Hamad bin Abdullah Al Thani, which agrees with the wikimapia article. Aji Network appears to be as reliable as I can find. here on 15 Sept. 2012 is another obit, without much content, just praising him. A mosque in the area of Ain ​​Khalid has been named after him and an foundation established to provide for a Quran school. the quran school is "حمد بن خالد لتعليم القرآن ". Oh, Arabic for his shorter name is حمد بن خالد آل ثاني and for his longer one  : حمد بن خالد بن حمد بن عبد الله آل ثاني --Bejnar (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jusay Ancestral House

 Request withdrawn

Jusay Ancestral House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, only primary sources available as far as I can see. Mabalu (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the creator's edits, I have the impression that the house might be an official historic structure in the Philippines. There is an apparently incomplete list of listed houses at this site. It's one of just two articles edited by the creator. It needs work, but nomination for deletion is not the way forward. Let's not bite the newbies. --doncram 01:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any evidence that it was officially listed. What sources I saw seemed to be demands for attention for the house's cause organised by its owners, nothing official. Since then, this source (which seems to be a Wikimedia project) seems to have popped up. As the article itself says - "The heiress, Melody Jusay, is planning to sell the house after completing all the necessary documentary requirements" - I can only conclude from statements like this that this article is actually a form of advertising/promotion trying to make the house sound more important and significant - which having an article on Wikipedia seems to confer, even though the only real sources seem to be interviews with the lady trying to flog her house and a Wikiproject. Are we estate agents now? Mabalu (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this is self-interested promotion to facilitate a sale. Absurd, really, to think that creating an English language Wikipedia article like this would be high on the "To Do" list of a real estate agent in the Philippines! Instead, it sounds rather more like this property is being documented in preparation for full listing on a historic registry. It might or might not have some preliminary or "nominated" listing status, but evidently at least some persons feel that it merits nomination or listing. Analogous to how we handle historic registries for other countries, it may be good to include articles for sites in the nomination process, or in the end maybe only ones that have achieved listing should automatically get separate articles.
I am more sure that this is an early Wiki-editing experience of several persons, and some for whom English is not their first or second language. For example this diff has erased a couple categories that I added, rather than refining them; not the sign of experienced editors.
Thank you for finding link to this WMF project about creating documentation on "all cultural properties in the Philippines", as specified by the Philippine Cultural Heritage Law. That seems like exactly it. It would be much better to contact the editors and to help with their process of bringing their works into the English wikipedia. And to document the historic site nomination process and sort out which levels should be deemed automatically wikipedia-notable, vs. not. This discussion/development is a natural project of WikiProject Historic Sites and/or of wp:Philippines. I will start discussion at wt:HSITES to try to recruit historic sites editors from other countries to help, and will post also at talk page of Philippines wikiproject.
  • Move to close on procedural basis, that an AFD on one article created is NOT the way to start dealing with what sounds like a great new initiative that should be supported and channeled, not battled. Hold off on this AFD and don't start new AFDs, please. I volunteer to keep track of a list of new articles of this type created, so that they could all be improved together, and so that "deletionist"-inclined editors don't have to worry that a few articles might get through (I'll keep track at wt:HSITES#Philippine Cultural Heritage sites). Anyone so concerned would have time to come back to dispute any, later. An RFC could perhaps be helpful, about what criteria required for separate Philippine historic site articles, but we're not ready for that, either, we need to make productive contact, first. --doncram 16:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to hand this over to you to deal with. For the record, it came up as a long-unreviewed page on Page Curation that had gone without attention for a long time, I kept coming back to it and debating how to handle it because regardless of what you may think, I'm actually not really a deletionist. I did look for sources, as I wanted to see that this was notable, but really couldn't find them. Clearly it took an AFD and over a week up for deletion before anyone even noticed and cared enough to kick up a stink about it, so mission achieved. Over to you now. :) Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks!! I will try, have started posting at wt:HSITES. Glad you struggled with how to deal with it, and that AFD maybe has worked then. And that you found way to GLAM-wiki project link. What I'll try to add is connection to similar treatment of historic registries in other countries. What I hate in many other sets of AFDs is that it can become apparent there is a group of similar articles that ought to be dealt with somehow -- not in AFD -- but wp:BATTLE mentality can come into play, and a process better than AFD can't really be tried, and newbies and/or experienced editors get bashed with negative deletions. Hmm, i see that Wikipedia:Page Curation is apparently a replacement for New Page Patrol. Okay, again, Thanks. --doncram 17:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn — Abhishek  Talk 15:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N S Narendra

N S Narendra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet the standard of notability. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: This article has changed significantly since I nominated it. It still needs work, but I believe the notability issue has been taken care of. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Yale School of Management. Nothing sourced to merge (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Insights

Yale Insights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An impressive list of blue-linked contributors but notability is not inherited. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cy-Gor

Cy-Gor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non notable character without third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 14:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e deckertalk 06:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cold as Ice (novel)

Cold as Ice (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable book I+delete+things+alot (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Norval, Ontario. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Road Enclave, Ontario

Hall Road Enclave, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability: should be either deleted or merged with Norval, Ontario or Halton Hills. G S Palmer (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Sublime

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Sublime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

very short article on non-notable compilation; no sources found Vanjagenije (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, the notion of a merge can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasir Padi

Pasir Padi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTE A beach with no major history or notability Amortias (T)(C) 11:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Daussy

Ida Daussy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTE Simply being a broadcaster and a professor unfotunatley doesnt give notability. Amortias (T)(C) 11:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and your reason (apart from being the creator)? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
See article. she is notable. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Alexandra

Douglas Alexandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTE Architect without any noteable building work Amortias (T)(C) 10:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 17:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Relisted, I'd like to see discussion of the sources added by Dan arndt on 26 May, which do not appear to have been in view for most of this discussion: [17]. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Café owner dies in Europe" news item does not add much of a notability to an "architect". If I am not missing anything, all sources make trivial mentions of the person. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Present ref 17 about his 1951 "maisonettes" says "A significant early work by this important modernist architect. " Note that a RS calls him an "important modernist architect." Other refs from reliable and independent sources say he was then a leading architect in his country. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. His work included residences as well as public buildings such as libraries and galleries. His modern style was notable at the time, and notability is not temporary. The opinions of Wikipedia editors that he was not important are trumped by reliable sources saying literally that he was a leading and important architect. Edison (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poiwan

Poiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTE not notable in itself as a village. Even if it has notable people from there Not in herited Amortias (T)(C) 10:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brayut Tourist Village

Brayut Tourist Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTE A small attraction with no major notability through either news or speciality Amortias (T)(C) 10:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here's the deal. A "tourist village" appears to be marketing term most often used in the Special Region of Yogyakarta in Java in Indonesia. (I've just created Tourist village, which has an article on the Indonesian wiki, id:Desa wisata. Its really just a populated place where they hope to bring in more tourists, and a populated place will always be ripe for having an article as long as its existence can be verified, which it can here.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crisco - seemingly a real and populated place with "tourist village" added as a tourist draw card. Successful or not, that doesn't stop is from being a real place. St★lwart111 11:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G-11 unambiguous advertising or promotion.. (non-admin closure) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Arry Sy

Ignatius Arry Sy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats):
Ignatius Arry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two articles on the same person, both written by that person himself (wp:autobiography). The articles lack reliable sources. Although Google gives some results for this person, I think that he fails WP:MUSBIO. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as purely promotional with no neutral version in the page history (WP:CSD#G11). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dim Lights, Thick Smoke And Hillbilly Music - Country & Western Hit Parade 1958

Dim Lights, Thick Smoke And Hillbilly Music - Country & Western Hit Parade 1958 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with invalid reasons of WP:PRETTY and WP:OSE. No sourcing found whatsoever on this album. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitnote

Bitnote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; could not find any reliable sources that mention the subject. Agyle (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. There are many number of reasons why this should be closed, not the least of which are the snowball clause and Ignore All Rules. Drmies has suggested that Candleabracadabra give his blessing before this closure, however that is not necessary. After all CAC would not have written this article if he have wanted it deleted. Should someone wish to provide a good faith reason why this should be deleted, and nominate it again, so be it. kelapstick(bainuu) 18:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native Hawaiian cuisine

Native Hawaiian cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this a legitimate article subject? I was unable to move the article back so a history merge from Draft:Native Hawaiian cuisine is needed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No reason for deletion has been given by the nominator. I visited Hawaii most recently six months ago, and since I am interested in cuisine, discovered many books on Hawaiian cuisine. Of couse, the cuisine before the arrival of Captain Cook's expedition is a highly notable topic, and the article is well-referenced. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article because there is a dispute over whether it should exist as an independent article from Cuisine of Hawaii and this seems like an appropriate venue to get community input on how best to handle the subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend keeping this article, but cutting way back on the material about post-contact food, which is covered better and more appropriately at Cuisine of Hawaii, which is of course a fusion cuisine. I believe that these are two related but discrete topics, each worthy of an article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cullen. Hafspajen (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the redirect should have been deleted before moving the article out of draft space,. Candleabracadabra, with as many edits as you have, you should know by now that you can't just copy/paste, even within Wikipedia, without providing attribution. Now a history merge (that could have easily been avoided) has to be done. I am happy to do it now, unless there is an objection of it being completed mid-AfD. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Kelapstick that I don't yet know all the procedural intricacies of Wikipedia. I blanked the page and you are welcome to delete it and move the article back from draft space. No history merge needed. I tried to move the article back to mainspace for the AfD but my powers are not great enough to achieve such endeavors on my own. I will leave a redirect in the meantime. It saddens me that I have disappointed you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well it is all sorted now, I have moved the draft back here so it has all the attribution required. Draft redirects here, and what not. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Kelapstick. Maybe this service you performed takes you off the shitlist. Maybe you can close this AfD as a SNOW keep/nomination withdrawn, if Candleabracabra blesses it? Drmies (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutri Ventures Corporation

Nutri Ventures Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

it is fairly obvious advertisement, and poorly written. Badger2424 (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After reading about different deletion processes, I decided to nominate this article for deletion. That is why you may see that I had previously nominated this for Speedy Deletion and other processes. If that is still active, could someone message me on my talk page about how to delete this? Thanks! Badger2424 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure where I stand on this yet. I found this HuffPost article that talks briefly about the company, but I don't think it would qualify as "significant coverage" per the general notability guideline. I also found this source and this one but again, it seems like these are passing mentions. (They can be translated via Google translate.) So far I don't think enough information has been provided in the article to demonstrate that it meets WP:CORP either. Maybe some more info could be gleaned from the Portuguese Wikipedia here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I ran into issues when searching for sources for the television show. I searched only under "Nutri Ventures", so hits for the company did come up with the show mention. However they were the same as the ones for the show: mostly press releases and unusable sources. If the article for the television show is kept, I'd recommend redirecting there since that's literally the only thing this company is known for and seems to be its sole reason for existing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 16:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 04:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gravedancer (song)

Gravedancer (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. Not ranked, not honored, not reviewed, etc. Brycehughes (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 16:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Content

Quantum Content (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure neologism. Article seems to be part of "EndPlay" company marketing Bhny (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found no independent reliable sources that use the term as it's meant here. (There are many other uses of the term, particularly in physics; there's an unrelated company called Quantum Content, and other writers invent their own independent definitions). The person who coined the phrase wrote an editorial for Forbes, but this is not an independent reliable source. The Wikipedia article currently cites a number of sources all connected to the same person/company, including a press release and a marketing piece for a panel discussion, which are also not independent reliable sources. It's possible I overlooked references to this, because it's such a commonly used phrase in academic literature (e.g., on scholar.google.com or books.google.com) and in general, so if anyone finds any, please link them and I'll reconsider.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In principle this could be a tough close since there is nothing to prevent the topic of "progressive conservatism" (even if it is a Contradictio in terminis) from being notable. However, the arguments brought up here for this specific article are all on the side of SYNTH/OR, and an incidental use of "progressive legislation" in a conservative context doesn't change that. Besides, two of the three keep voters don't actually present any arguments at all, just assertions. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism

Progressive conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is synthesis. While various conservatives have been described as "progressive", there is no consistency in what is meant and no literature about "progressive conservatism." The Conservative Party of Canada was at one time called the Progressive Conservative Party after a former leader of the Progressive Party became their leader, and the page was originally created as a re-direct , although they never described their ideology as that.

The article describes it as an "ideology that incorporates moderate progressive ideas alongside conservative principles," and provides Bismarck and Disraeli as examples. But neither premier was ever described as "progressive conservative." It then lists various people who have been described as progressive conservatives, or both progressive and conservative - including U.S. presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Taft and Eisenhower, and UK premier David Cameron - without providing any source that links them together or explains what is meant.

While there may be a temptation to try to find a single definition and then edit the article to reflect it, it is probably better to "Blow it up" until and unless someone is able to do that.

TFD (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TFD (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Progressive conservativism is obviously the pragmatic philosophy of The Leopard: "everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same". This is not mere satire but the explicit policy of many such politicians. See, for example, The Political Culture of the American Whigs: "European conservatives in the nineteenth century sometimes found that progressive legislation suited their purpose as Bismark and Disraeli well illustrate...". The worst case is that one would merge into some similar political label such as Progressive Conservative. Insofar as there have been major political parties with this name, deletion is out of the question as we certainly require disambiguation and redirects to assist navigation. Andrew (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your source says that conservatives consider "a measure of progress is desirable to forestall more drastic upheavals." It does not call them progressive conservatives. TFD (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The terms appear commonly attached in descriptions of various people and ideas, but as noted it's not clear that there's a distinct and discrete concept here, or one that links, as the page tries to, Bismarck, David Cameron and Teddy Roosevelt. Different authors are mostly using it, sometimes in different ways, as a broad description for those who they want to suggest are not outright reactionaries, when they might as easily have used, and probably do in a different sentence, "liberal" conservatism, "moderate" conservatism or any other synonymous qualifier. And we have a page on the former already, while the latter redirects to it. A disambiguation page is probably necessary, given that the term is used in some party names, but I'm not sure there's any coherent substantive content that isn't better placed elsewhere. N-HH talk/edits 13:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While it certainly needs a lot of work (mainly expansion), this topic is notable, and has reliable sources. Johnny338 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic is certainly notable, it just needs some cleaning up. Staglit 21:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
But what is the topic? That's the point: it's not clear that we have anything more than the random confluence of a noun and a qualifying adjective, as opposed to a coherent and discrete topic formally known by the specific combined term across third-party sources. And, in any event, does the broad term mean anything different to, say, Liberal conservatism? More generally, brief and bold assertions that "this topic is/seems notable", without further explanation, are deployed far too often in AfD discussions and really don't help clarify anything. And it may have sources but the question is what those sources actually show. N-HH talk/edits 21:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Once the obvious sock postings are discounted, it's clear there is a consensus to delete this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Wenfei

Dong Wenfei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable kickboxer, does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you could explain why your statement is true. Papaursa (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would also allow time to fix what looks like a poor machine translation. It is really badly written.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Philg88 ♦talk 04:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking nonsense! (Anger) Fyfw523 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
It does not help to vote "keep" repeatedly. --Cold Season (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, No, No, he is completely satisfied the above conditions! Fyfw523 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out how it is established that the topic "completely satisfied the above conditions", because I don't see it and these lack-of-argument (as mentioned earlier) evasive responses are unconvincing. --Cold Season (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this fighter has fought both Buakaw and Albert Kraus in WLF, and WLF is indeed considered as a notable event among Albert Kraus's titles, I would suggest to keep his page with proper editation Linusji (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! Say well! Best gay friend!! Fyfw523 (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's now obvious where you stand; do not WP:SOCK. --Cold Season (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do happen to know this contributor through a forum, but my point is still non-biased. Linusji (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And neither is it inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). Who he fought matters less than what was fought for.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit! Fyfw523 (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jannat. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hob Gamed

Hob Gamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or Merge with Jannat. Totally unsourced article about a studio album by Jannat, with no indication of why it would need a separate article. The only "reference" leads to a webshop, confirming that the album exists, but nothing else. Thomas.W talk 15:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jannat. Interested users can merge using the page history, and there's no need to delete outright this plausible search term. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hob Emtelak

Hob Emtelak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or Merge with Jannat. Unsourced article about a studio album by Jannat, with no indication of why it would need a separate article. The only reference is about the artist, Jannat, not the album. Thomas.W talk 15:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While the article won't be deleted per this discussion, there's no consensus as whether to retain or merge the article, although consensus is leaning toward a merge. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 10:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elli Beny W Benak

Elli Beny W Benak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or Merge with Jannat. Unsourced article about a studio album by Jannat, with no indication of why it would need a separate article. The only reference is about the artist, Jannat, not the album. Thomas.W talk 15:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added and modified references in the article. This album is popular in Egypt and has gotten an EMI Golden Disk Award in 2009. User:JannatChannel

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 18:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect with Jannat and possibly block User:JannatChannel for WP:COI editing. Dailymotion is not an RS, and I can't find RS for the award claim. Article itself is little more than a track listing. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Jannat. Clearly the analysis of PaintedCarpet is speedy, did he understand Arabic written in articles? also I find being accused of WP:COI really cheap and frustrating. For the record I'm new (inexperienced) with wikipedia rules. My interest in editing Jannat article can summarized in what follows : wast of time of finding and translating resources and zero pounds: keep in mind to not mix what happen in USA with what happens in the Arabic world. Musical industry here is by far less developed in media, so the difficulty to find reliable resources. (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JannatChannel (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jannat. .... a bit of information, presuming it is verifiable j⚛e deckertalk 18:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good News 4 Music Vol.1

Good News 4 Music Vol.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or Merge with Jannat. Totally unsourced article about a studio album by Jannat, with no indication of why it would need a separate article. Thomas.W talk 15:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW). Despite the few guideline-based delete !votes, consensus herein is very strong that the subject passes various notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:ENT). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzannah Lipscomb

Suzannah Lipscomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a user User:TheRedPenOfDoom is repeatedly adding not notable to the story - the subject is imo borderline notable and the article and talk is borderline attacking now and deletion is a good position for the person - Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was nominated without a template. Just fixed it. This is Paul (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The subject has made several contributions to literature, television, print media, etc, which would be fine for an encyclopedia article. There are other issues going on with this page, which have been discussed at length elsewhere. I'm not sure about the rationale for nominating this, and can't help thinking it's all just part of the ongoing dispute involving this topic. This is Paul (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, here's a few references discussing Lipscomb and her work, [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and last but not least this one, which describes her as "award-winning academic, author and historian Dr Suzannah Lipscomb". I found most of these within five minutes of searching, but I'm sure a more in depth Google search would shed light on those awards. This is Paul (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • its pretty obvious that it was a quick search because there is a distinct lack of content about the subject of the article by third parties in any of them. There are promotional blurbs where she repeats the content of the shows/her books. There is an essay that she wrote about why she chose to work at a small school over a large school, one of the others she is not mentioned at all, it is just a sidebar link back to her essay. one she is quoted briefly from her essay. etc. Yes, she may be a "go to" talking head for a quick quote, but that does not establish notability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:GHITS - we require coverage in reliably published sources and so you if you find any in that search result, please bring forth any specific ones. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes please delete it if Wiki are unable to control negative contributors, such as User:TheRedPenOfDoom who keep messing the facts around such that this page is now but a shadow of the truth, although I imagine that his purpose in being so destructive is to make deletion a possibility. The current version has no references to higher qualifications although ample evidence has been shown and which must be obvious when one considers the subject's activities. Many other things too have been removed. It seems that Wikipedia is unable to maintain the truth. Removal would be preferable to this shadow of the facts pertaining to the subject, which was originally submitted to Wikipeia by the subject's employer, New College of the Humanities.MdeBohun (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — MdeBohun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sorry to intervene but the word "negative" is negative, not that user.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"is now but a shadow of the truth, " from the person who is adamant that the marriage not be mentioned! ROFLMFAO!!! "truth" seeker indeed!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user TheRedPenOfDoom should continue to be blocked from editing this page as it is clear from his comments above that he is a one track pony, only concerned with the subject's marriage status, which is married / separated / getting divorced. It's fine to mention the marriage so long as the latest situation is included, but that's not his purpose. There are other awards than those currently shown that have been removed, e.g. 'In 2011, she was awarded a public engagement grant (People Award) from the Wellcome Trust to fund ‘All the King’s Fools’, a performance project in which actors with learning disabilities played the Tudor period’s ‘natural fools’ at Hampton Court Palace, which won a 2012 Museums + Heritage Award for Excellence. [1] and 'In 2012, she was awarded the Nancy Roelker Prize by the Sixteenth Century Society for her journal article, ‘Crossing Boundaries: Women’s Gossip, Insults and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France’ in French History (Vol 25, No. 4)' - See more at: [2].
One track pony?! Have you looked at his contribution record? Maproom (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason somebody is aiming to undermine the subject by removing references to her doctorate but leaving her high school. Removing awards, but insisting upon marriage status. Users with no agenda, such as as This is Paul should be asked to sort out this mess. The subject never asked for a Wikipedia page and would prefer not to have one if it is constantly sabotaged by others removing relevant facts.MdeBohun (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — MdeBohun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I didnt bring up the marriage until you started going on about how the article doesnt reflect the "truth". The facts are clear that you dont actually care about "the truth" - only about the parts of "the truth" that the subject of the article wants to include. WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTWEBHOST - we dont do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason not to mention a previous marriage, so long as the latest situation is included, ie separated and getting divorced. That is truth, I think it is clear that TheRedPenofDoom is childishly majoring on a very minor aspect of the page and has thus jeopardised it's existence. His aggressive style is that of the ex-husband.MdeBohun (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What has "jeopardised" the page's existence is the fact that there is a grand lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In terms of notability, I believe she meets the guidelines (as stated above), but if the subject herself is unhappy with having a Wikipedia page then that must be considered, and I would support her wish. I believe there is a process by which someone can ask to have a page about them deleted (I've seen it happen a couple of times). I believe Suzannah Lipscomb would have to contact Wikipedia herself to get the ball rolling, but maybe someone can refresh my memory about what has to be done. In the event the article is kept I'd be happy to do what I can to tidy it up and add it to my watchlist, but my concern would be the disagreement over what should and shouldn't be included may continue. It seems to kick off every time she appears on TV at present. This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • while it would not guarantee deletion, Lipscomb could use the WP:OTRS system to identify herself and make her wishes known. In cases like this of marginal notability, the users wish to be off wiki will often be taken into consideration by !voters and the admin determining the consensus. Note the the subject cannot be "I dont want the current version, but I do want one where I approve and like all of the content."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires coverage in reliable sources. so that tosses the Daily Mail out. The Telegraph if you are talking about [25] is not at all about Lipscomb- its a promo blurb for a TV show and she is mentioned as having a role in it. There is no History Today in the article or in this page that I can see. Can you link to it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[26], [27]. OccultZone (Talk) 06:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and the History Today links are to articles that she has written, not to any significant content about her. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Of course this page should be kept. Suzannah Lipscomb is an eminent historian. I have viewed her page before and wondered at the changes, why are her qualifications, awards and TV programmes removed, and I agree that it looks as if it is being targeted by somebody with an agenda against her. In her position I am sure she would wish to have a Wikipedia page if it did not keep being damaged, one that reflected the facts of her life. I do not see what is wrong with the reference above to History Today, it seems to show many articles written by Suzannah Lipscomb for that magazine. The stats show 2,500+ viewings from time-to-time, which surely means she is of interest.Kinabalu14 (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)— Kinabalu14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia and its Articles for Deletion page. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"eminent " historians would be widely cited in the academic literature. there is no evidence that she is. popular historians would have their works reviewed in the popular press, there is no evidence that hers have been. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I the only contributor who has not been WP:BLUDGEONed by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ? . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
maybe because you didnt even attempt to make a policy based argument. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
most of her works have not been documented by reliable sources, which is wikipedia's standard for establishing notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voceditenore has now found and provided third party coverage of several of the entertainment shows. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the subject has appeared on several documentary TV shows, including BBC Four and National Geographic, which would allow her to pass WP:NACTOR alone, although she fails WP:PROF. Even assuming her life has been covered in the Daily Mirror, a mention in a non-reliable source does not taint an otherwise notable person (see Woody Allen and Paloma Picasso in the New York Post). I'm leaning to a keep, but would prefer better sourcing about the subject. Userfication is another option. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing based on sources and discussion below. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I fail to see why Dr. Lipscomb's page should be deleted. She lectures on history extensively, e.g. Chalke Valley History Festival,[3] the BBC History magazine history weekend at Malmesbury, both this year[4] and last year, and in 2009 she toured American universities lecturing. I have found one example[5], and there are more. I can't imagine why this page is being considered for deletion.Wrecklesham (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Wrecklesham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Of course I have made no comments about anybody else, I just made an account to comment on this travesty, about which I felt strongly. This doesn't make my opinion any weaker than anyone else's.Wrecklesham (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source
Help required to improve this story - this is all that is being allowed in about her education by the User:TheRedPenOfDoom repeatedly removing details claiming there is some 'consensus' that Lipscomb is not a reliable source about herself;
Lipscomb was educated at Nonsuch High School for Girls. She is a governor at Epsom
This is her actual education history - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Suzannah_Lipscomb&diff=608342822&oldid=608342536
Lipscomb was educated at Nonsuch High School for Girls,[1] and at Epsom College,[1] where she is now a governor.[2] She then attended Lincoln College at the University of Oxford where she was awarded a double first class honours degree in Modern History and a Masters in Historical Research.[3] See page 34[4] She then won the Jowett Senior Scholarship to Balliol College, University of Oxford, from where she was awarded a doctorate in history.[5] Her doctoral supervisor was Robin Briggs, All Souls College, University of Oxford.[6][7]
If the article is not to more honestly be allowed to report her actual status then please move to deletion. Can you not see how demeaning and attacking it is to create a story about someone so qualified and yet only report such trivialities? Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This is an easy one. Dr. Lipscomb's page should be kept and corrected to the way it was before all of the deletions. She lectures on history all over the World. I can't fathom why this page is being considered for deletion. She is also a well know TV presenter[6] and this[7] plus many others. In addition a published author[8] She is an academic/author/presenter of tremendous repute. I read all of the opinions above and I find this to be a case of this person being of a WP:BLUDGEON bordering on WP:BULLYING She obviously has impeccable credentials.Thewho515 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)— Thewho515 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  1. ^ http://www.allthekingsfools.co.uk/site/
  2. ^ http://www.sixteenthcentury.org/prizes/roelker/
  3. ^ http://www.cvhf.org.uk/speaker/suzannah-lipscomb/
  4. ^ http://www.historyweekend.com/speaker/suzannah-lipscomb
  5. ^ http://www2.wlu.edu/x35869.xml
  6. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2013/50/hidden-killers.html
  7. ^ http://natgeotv.com/uk/bloody-tales-1
  8. ^ http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/authors/suzannah-lipscomb
  • Keep Primarily because the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER Criterion 1 (has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions) by virtue of having been the presenter of multiple television series/programs for notable British broadcasting companies, BBC, ITV, Channel 5 (plus the National Geographic Channel) I have included references to reviews (not simple TV listings) for three of these programs in The Independent and Daily Telegraph. The Clive James review in the Daily Telegraph devotes at least a paragraph to her. I have also included as a reference an article devoted to her—not just an interview—in the Oxford Times which verifies a fair amount of the biographical information. She could even pass WP:PROF Criterion 3 (is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association) via her election as a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and Criterion 7 (has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, e.g. if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area). There is ample evidence of this, the dismissive description of her as "the go-to person" in the popular press above merely supports this. Note also that the specialised criteria at WP:PROF and WP:ENTERTAINER are alternatives to passing WP:GNG and only require one of the criteria to be met—not all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the contributor above has been canvassed on his talk-page by an spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: MdeBohun commented on my talk page about things he/she wanted added to the article over an hour after [28] I had begun editing the article [29]. This discussion at ANI was the reason I began editing the article and evaluating whether it should be kept or not. As for MdeBohun's suggestions of what to add, I implemented none of them because they were all inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the rather large number of single purpose new accounts showing up here to !vote "keep", you are actually harming the chances of this article of being kept by flooding this page with walls of text, inappropriate personalised arguments directed at other editors, and unsuitable sources, which clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of the inclusion criteria Wikipedia uses, nor what is considered a reliable source. Your !votes will be discounted. To those experienced editors who are !voting "delete", please ignore the presence and commentary of these SPAs (and the editor with a clear conflict of interest) and evaluate the arguments for keeping or deleting this article dispassionately and objectively. I know, it's hard to do when you're being unfairly accused of bludgeoning and bullying and faced with these walls of text from the SPAs, but do it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed. I was canvassed about this issue last night, but had already made my thoughts known here before that. I'll withdraw from the debate, but will just say the way this discussion is being conducted is very unhelpful. Also, I made reference to WP:BLUDGEON because there's no need for editors to respond to every comment with which they disagree, which is what appeared to be happening when I posted the comment. This is Paul (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will stand behind my asking for people to provide specifics and evidence to back up generalities. particularly when as happened a number of times in this discussion, the specifics and evidence show that the initial generality is not actually supported.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's not a major academic, but her career as a TV presenter combined with her academic profile make her notable enough. For some reason this article has descended into a quagmire of deletions and restorations of content, for which, IMO, several editors are to blame, with childish tit-for-tat deletions and weird additions of odd content. All this is clearly related to some sort of acrimonious dispute between parties outside Wikipedia, but it's resulted in a very ugly mess. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-known notable TV presenter. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG handily. --NellieBly (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Certainly a fair number of the sources are underwhelming in how much coverage they give the subject, but they are easily numerous and substantial enough on the whole that the article passes GNG, and BIO considerations, with ease. The article has issues, but they can be resolved with a little time and patience and a more collaborative approach. Snow talk 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, and discipline edit warriors. This appears to be a bad faith nomination. The subject has written notable books and curated exhibits at visible venues; she easily passes GNG and BLP, AUTHOR and AC. Detractors seem intent on defacing the page which is not helpful to the project. Possibly Speedy Keep though this is headed for a snow close anyway. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable TV presenter. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject meets notability requirements for stand alone article. Nomination is flawed for it seeks deletion in preference to the articles published content, to wit: not liking it is not a valid reason to delete; WP:SOFIXIT applies—a strong collaboration is currently in progress, to that end! In my opinion, a snow close is warranted.—John Cline (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not convinced that FRHistSoc is enough for WP:PROF — their eligibility requirements look like you only need to be a published history author for that, rather than the more distinguished academic level that criterion is looking for. But the multiple in-depth published reviews of her television and book works are enough for WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be interested to know where David Eppstein (talk) found the information that says that the Royal Historical Society makes Fellows only on the basis of them being published history authors as I couldn't find the criteria on their website? MdeBohun (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maguire (boxer)

Michael Maguire (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer - no title fights Peter Rehse (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX. He had a high ranking as a junior amateur, but junior achievements aren't sufficient to show notability. Not sure what is meant when it says he was a member of the Olympic team but didn't qualify for the Olympics in either of his weight classes because other fighters did. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecies about Pope John Paul II

Prophecies about Pope John Paul II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research/synthesis. The article cites various poems, speeches etc and postulates that they're prophecies about Pope John Paul II. The conclusion that they're prophecies about him is not drawn in any of the cited sources, but synthesized in the article itself. Kolbasz (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Jakub Szymański
No synthesis. No original research.
And now fulfilled terms as for sources and footnotes.Jakub Szymański (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for your mantra:
"The article cites various poems, speeches etc and postulates that they're prophecies about Pope John Paul II. The conclusion that they're prophecies about him is not drawn in any of the cited sources, but synthesized in the article itself".
There is now following number of cited sources, who explicity connect cited "poems" with Person Pope John Paul II as Prophecies about Him:
internet 4, books 12, papers 3.
Do this will melt down scepticism of yours or there is nothing which can crush him? Because you are per se prussian soldier ?Jakub Szymański (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. Only the author of the article has made a connection between the "prophecies" (actually many aren't even that) and JPII, and those connections are in any case tenuous. It's a a devotional essay. Absolute WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
Dear Ignorant DeCausa - please check article now. And You before next time will put forward objections, first You learn Polish language and check all matter more profoundly, and not only on surfaces of mind and imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as for "devotional essay" - first encyclopedia on the world was writen by St Isidore of Seville... but do You even know about that, dear Iberian?
Writting about religious matters not neccessary mean that something is devotional, but that you write about spiritual matters and angle of view is little different... (but still in norm of rational thinking).
Fides ratio quarens, puer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.163.199 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jakub, although I'm not an Iberian, according to our article on him it seems that Isidore of Seville would not have engaged in original research in the way you have. From the article:
..."in fact, in the majority of his works, including the Origines, he contributes little more than the mortar which connects excerpts from other authors, as if he was aware of his deficiencies and had more confidence in the stilus maiorum than his own" his translator Katherine Nell MacFarlane remarks.
You need to emulate him (apart from the potential copyright violation).DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
Yes I know works of St Isidore in latin. And He is really Master in finding and making sentences from works of other Peoples, but not only, He is more then this. He is probably The Best in this in whole world. But believe to Me, this is Gift. And He also adds there His Own Material with virtuosity.
When I made reference to Him, I had on mind rather this that He, as ecclesiastic writer not had any problem with construction of first book knowledge encyclopedic, i.e. Etymologies.
As for "Iberian". If there would be writen: De Causa - of course this have own meaning. But: DeCausa - sounds iberian, do You not think so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
You are wonderful, one on who we always can count. If there is some club in which they believe that Earth is flat, you definite should be on list in such place...Jakub Szymański (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
Ignorance is a blessing. Dear Konieczny You are good example of this. Article is still under construction, but as for now holds Wiki standards. Check again now.
Besides you should see articles in category: prophecy. I don't think that they are made in better style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
No personal attacks. As Pole basiclly you should know these stories at last as from hearing...
And I'm senstitive to remarks, i.e. I try improve this what was indicated as "gap".
So check this time, I add on 19 May next additional references (8 with 10 sources). So You can check this for yourself, and let to know to some peoples from other parts of world that infos included in article have strong base. Jakub Szymański (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
Dear Trystan
When you advertise yourself as gender promotor, I have strong conviction that your opinion is not fully meritorical and as I suspect very non-neutral. Because gender is ideology, so you seems to be also: devotional in this way.
As for article, he is rather: inspirational.
You should rethink all matter, and let Me know. If you have some remarks about content of article, share with this, but you should indicate exactly what part...
Best regards dear Trystan (and Isolde, perhaps). Jakub Szymański (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
In which part this Article is original research? Or maybe Saint Barnstar you are little jealous? If you are not lazy go through all footnotes in fully (in which Polish language should help you) and then back with remarks. Because if you have abilities and not use them in logical thinking... So in your case investigation this is a matter of decency...Jakub Szymański (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
Boy Kpalion, you also make mental mistakes in other issues. For example: after partition of Poland there was not "Polish state". So if you named heads of "Polish state" some russian aggressors, this is mental aberration (this was only russian cover for "sweetening" of lack of Polish independence, and this is russian term, but not Polish). Rescius called this situation: Civitatis aliquod ornamentum (and may be even less then this) - but no Polish state. Do you have some lack of identity also?Jakub Szymański (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original POV essay, exemplified by the line "Yet his Pontificate came in time when Poland was in the darkness of Russian communism, but this Pope brought the country to the ‘higher place’ of Freedom." Carrite (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
Dear Carrite you have some right, but with this one line "Yet his Pontificate came in time when Poland was in the darkness of Russian communism, but this Pope brought the country to the ‘higher place’ of Freedom." - I've tried to explain fulfilment of prophecy in then situation. But as for prophecy itself and recognition of its contents there are strong evidences in footnotes (if you want little longer discussion, I can explain this to you more profoundly). Besides: I can also show to you some similar lines made by other people (i.e. "POV") in other Wiki articles... Besides: this one line give 2 "verses" from 72 "verses" full text. So if you feel yourself strong, maybe you should try with this what left? Because this one (or 2) is little to little for judge whole thing... And as for "POV" - I'm always speak to malcontents: you should read the footnotes. And personaly I speak to you: you already forgot, how it was in history?
And as for this one line, you could very easy read recent footnote 29 (i.e. interview with Mr Ascherson...) besides many others, which are in cited books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakub Szymański (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański
Dear Carrite, I find any pleasure in badgering people. I try just understand why they behave like they behave. So this is more philosophical matter (Socrateian you can name it). Something far above "badgering". But not everybody can catch this...Jakub Szymański (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jakub, you are not trying to "understand why they behave like they behave". That is very clear. You are making no effort whatsoever to understand Wikipedia's policies. Cut out the "you are all too stupid to understand why I am right" attitude, and try to grasp that Wikipedia has certain rules on how to write an article and it is highly unlikely that you were born with the innate knowledge of how to do it. The quickest way to learn how to do it is to listen, really listen, to the advice and criticism offered to you. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time. DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Jakub Szymański

My dear friend DeCausa. First of all... Your supposition about "attitude" is not very in target... I'm not try to prove that people are "stupid". In fact I think that every human being have his own dignity... But, it is worthy listening to the other people, such like in this case... Because in words, used by you, you yourself probably revealed your very own "problems/complexes". If you feel yourself "stupid" - I think that You shouldn't. Because I think that inteligence you have and hunger for the knowledge and personal development. So you be calm and happy. Everything will be OK. Because by these yours attitudes, you are in place like Wiki, where is some mentality spirit, which attracted people with intelligence. So don't worry, you have hunger, which don't will be satisfied, till not you find mentaly, what you looking for... And this, about what you speak, should be rather understand in context, for example like... Wiki has some "gaps", because is written by people, who also had "gaps". But everybody have some "gaps". You and I also... But also I have better knowledge about something, and you have better knowledge something other. And people by that are also in richness of spirituality and mentality. I mean relations. As for "innate knowledge"... Thomas Aquinas told that only pure substances (i.e. Angels) have innate knowledge. And according to Aristotle every man is born as white page... so we all must acquire knowledge with great effort. And I assure You that My effort in acquiring knowledge in Wiki (specialy technical) was in labors. As for criticism, I'm listening... but only in frontiers of reason. Time this is not wasted, because this is goodness, which be fruitful also in researching other people. And above all I met such noble Persons like You, for example... Jakub Szymański (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Martínez

Karim Martínez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Martyniouk

Stan Martyniouk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite spirited opposition to deletion by one editor, the argument for deletion that the subject is not covered in reliable third-party sources is compelling, and that's what consensus also amounts to. Can be redirected as suggested at the end at editors' discretion.  Sandstein  19:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies

European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which databases relevant to archaeology did you check please? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is not indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index, British Humanities Index, or Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, which are the databases that, for example, the American Journal of Archeology and Medieval Archaeology (journal) are indexed in. The latter is also in the MLA International Bibliography, but I don't have access to that database so can not check it for the EJoPCA. The American Journal is also included in the ERIH list, but that one is currently not online (in the process of being transferred to a Norwegian organization) and is not very selective anyway because it basically strives for completeness. In addition to the foregoing, I also checked Scopus, which is rather inclusive (but still usually is taken as establishing notability). If you know of any selective archeology-specific databases that might be of importance here let me know and I'll check them, too. --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established academic journal about to issue fourth volume. Reliable source for Italian archaeology. Agreed sources are not strong but it should be possible to expand it. Much content is in Italian and a search of google.it shows sources. We shouldn't discriminate against it just because it is mainly in Italian. Note WP:NJournals is an essay not a policy. (It's open access too) Philafrenzy (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we should not discriminate against a journal because it is published in Italy. Neither does that mean that we should forget all notability criteria. NJournals is an essay, but it is designed to make it easier for journals to meet our notability criteria. If a journal does not meet NJournals, it almost certainly doesn't meet the general notability guideline either. The article has been tagged for lack of notability for over a month now, without any improvement forthcoming. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like you, I have many things I want to do here. There are a million articles here that need more sources. Have you looked at the editorial board? They are not writing it and publishing it for fun are they? Those articles are being used by students and academics or it wouldn't have got to four volumes (soon). Just because it hasn't been picked up strongly by Google is no reason to delete it. The encyclopedia is better with this article than without it and more sources will appear in the fullness of time. In the meantime it remains a RS in its area. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded the article a little. The field of post-classical (medieval or post-Roman) archaeology is relatively new (1970s on) and one thing they do in PCA is publish memoirs from the first people working in the field describing their experience of trying to gain acceptance for the area, for instance Bryan Ward-Perkins on the difference between English and Italian approaches or the first uses of the Harris matrix in the field. There are many other articles they have published on this so far in addition to regular archaeological papers. As far as I know, nobody else is publishing this sort of historiographical (archaeolographical?) material and I think there is plenty of room to plug these open access articles into the encyclopaedia further. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, publishing articles, whether interesting or not, does not contribute one iota to notability (unless it can be shown that they actually have been noted by third parties. And as the Google Scholar link above indicates, any evidence of that is lacking). As for your earlier remark that students and academics must read it otherwise it wouldn't still be around after 3-4 years, academic publishing requires patience and usually journals take more than that to prove to be viable or not. This is a bit different for an open-access journal like this, because those are "author driven", not "reader driven". Even if nobody ever reads it, such a journal will be viable as long as academics need to find an outlet for their articles (which they need to publish in order to be evaluated well for jobs, promotions , etc). So the fact that this has been around a mere 3-4 years is no indication of possible notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable third-party sources found yet, and alternative criteria suggested in the WP:NJOURNAL essay, such as inclusion in major indexes, do not seem to have been met yet. I am unswayed by the notability of the journal's contributors; an unnotable topic shouldn't inherit notability from people associated with it. The "Wikipedia is better with it than without it" argument just falls flat for me; most of the article reads like a reviewer's opinion piece about the journal, and while that's useful (reviews of things are popular, and I read them myself!), it's not the sort of verifiable, encyclopedic coverage appropriate for Wikipedia. If it were stripped down to a stub, just parroting the uncontroversial parts of the publisher's description (with attribution), it would at least be factual, and if article inclusion policy were up to me I'd probably adjust the policy to allow it, but the policy is not up to me. Based on information available so far, this seems like the sort of topic most of the community's policies seem designed to exclude from Wikipedia. Agyle (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You really want to delete a multi volume, peer reviewed, open access journal on archaeology with contributions from major figures in its field? How does that make any sense for the project? The policies are there to guide us, not for us to become slaves to them. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Much of the rationale behind the notability guidelines are to maintain encyclopedic integrity. With no independent sources about the topic, the article is limited to information from the publisher, and whatever unverifiable editorial content people generate, whether right or wrong. Agyle (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of an academic journal that is not included in the relevant indexes (either because it is too new or has not paid to be or for some other reason) how would you see notability being demonstrated? We know that it has survived to volume 4 and does not appear to be vanity publishing as was suggested above as it has important figures in its area editing and contributing who have no need to pad their CVs. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of a single respectable selective database that asks journals to pay for inclusion. If a journal is "too new", then that is a clear case of "too soon" and you should wait with article creation until it is actually notable, after all, WP:There is no deadline. If you read my above comments more carefully, you'll see that I did never say that this was a vanity publication. I really urge you to read up on WP's standards for sourcing and notability (and don't forget WP:NOTINHERITED), so that we can avoid having the same conversations over and over again. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, you're asking how to demonstrate notability of a publication that has attracted virtually no notice in independent published sources, has no demonstrable influence in its field, has no significant history, has received no well known awards, has made no major achievements, has been involved in no prominent scandals, has not been included in selective indexing services, and does not seem to be frequently cited in other notable scholarly publications. If I thought it were likely that notability could be demonstrated, I wouldn't have voted "delete" for now; I already considered the rationales that I can think of. I do not have access to good databases of academic journals, so I don't have a good feel for how often its cited, and might be swayed by statistics regarding this, even though it is not among the guidelines' explicit criteria. However, I am doubtful of this; usually books.google and scholar.google give some indication of third-party citation frequency even in fields they don't cover well, and they turned up nothing. Agyle (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources, which I agree are of varying quality:

My concern is we are looking in the wrong place as it defies common sense that a journal would get to four volumes, apparently be of a high quality, peer reviewed with notable contributors, yet be missed by every index and uncited. Is it because it is mostly in Italian? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Philafrenzy, it absolutely does not "defy common sense" that a journal that is barely 4 years old is not yet indexed or much cited. Citations take time to build up. Databases need to review a certain number of issues of a journal before deciding on their possible inclusion. Language has not much to do with it, as many journals in the humanities are not in English. None of your "references" listed above contribute to notability (or even provide any useful info on the journal). All they show is that people list articles they published in that journal on their CV or mention that they are part of the editorial board. --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they'd convince some editors, given the vast range of opinions, but they're googleable links I already considered. On your question of whether the journal's inclusion of Italian-language articles was a reason for exclusion here, I can tell you it doesn't matter to me, and Wikipedia guidelines make no distinction (all things being equal, reliable sources are preferred in English, but all languages are acceptable). It is possible that it's a factor considered by indexing services, and I'd guess it impacts the journal's readership to some extent. I checked if there was an alternate, Italian-language title for the publication, that might return more search results, but I didn't find any, even on Italian-language web pages like Archeologia Medievale. Agyle (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting bias from anyone here and I am aware that we shouldn't discriminate against foreign language sources, merely that for practical reasons we might not be picking up on Italian language sources that, for instance, an Italian archaeologist would go straight to. We seem to be limited to academic indexes and Google, and I feel there is a world of web and offline sources outside those two. You could argue this is a case of systemic bias as it seems unlikely that the journal would be so un-noted if it was mainly in English. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but having read several AfD discussions about journals, all-English journals seem to face the same difficulty with third-party notability. Even after decades of publication, it seems quite common for a journal to have attracted no significant coverage in independent sources; who would write an article about the IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, except the IEEE? I'd presume that's why the essay WP:NJOURNAL was written to provide alternatives to consider in assessing notability. Most journal articles I've seen on Wikipedia, even when the consensus is that they're notable, do not expand beyond stubs. Agyle (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which means we are more or less letting the indexes choose what we include. I don't think anyone here has argued that this journal, for instance, is not a reliable source in its area and I think that should have more weight in the discussion. After all, if it is reliable, and particularly if it is open access and fully linkable, we are likely to start using it as a source as I have and ideally we would probably have an article for each reliable source? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different sort of question; in Wikipedia's meaning of "reliable source", discussed in WP:RS, "reliability of a source depends on context." For example, The New York Times is often considered a reliable source, but would not be acceptable for many medical claims, where more specialized sources are required (see WP:MEDRS). Similarly, its Op Ed section would generally not be considered a reliable source for facts, but may be considered a reliable source for statements about an author's opinions. In the case of scholarly sources: "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." Agyle (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gian Pietro Brogiolo the EIC, where the journal is mentioned. I can sympathize with Philafrenzy's frustration at excluding verifiable, serious academic journals that are not quite notable by WP standards. Notability thresholds will always ensure that WP is a curmudgeonly, trailing edge information resource full of holes in coverage. As far as I can tell, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for the journal to appear in selective indexes or to be commented upon by independent RS. Nonetheless, uncontroversial facts, like the journal's existence and title, are verifiable in authoritative primary sources and the journal title is a plausible search term. If we had an article on SAP Società Archeologica, that would be a natural merge target, but we don't. Until the journal does become notable, a redirect to the editor in chief's article article seems the best way to preserve at least the journal's existence on WP. --Mark viking (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by MusikAnimal (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Mohan

Nikhil Mohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

created by a single purpose editor. Blatant WP:AUTOBIO. The awards may confer notability but the Thomas Jefferson Medal in Architecture doesn't look particularly special, and RIBA European Award gives awards to companies, although it didn't stop use Nick adding in Nikhil's name to the award. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cueing (playback)

Cueing (playback) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references to verify and honestly I can't understand what the subject is about. Jim Carter (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article with a reference, more detail, and categoriesOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This could be part of an article on DJs, either in clubs or in radio broadcasting in the vinyl record era, but there seem to be enough refs to justify a standalone article. A DJ had to cue a vinyl record to avoid the usual results of pressing "play" on a turntable, which resulted in: a delay, then a crunch when the stylus set down on the record, then a variable one to two second delay until the music started. A turntable with a felt mat could allow the record to be played through the cueing amplifier on the control board to the DJs headphones (thus not going over the air) and when the sound started the record could be rotated back a bit so it was ready to play, with the turntable still spinning. A vocal announcement of the record could be made, with the phono pickup connected to the outgoing program amplifier, then at the desired instant releasing the record would cause it to start playing immediately. Some of the refs I easily found at Google book search are: [30] "Ultimate Beginner DJ Styles: The Turntable DJ" by Ben James, [31] "Audio Production Worktext: Concepts, Techniques, and Equipment" by David E. Reese et al, [32] "Radio in the Movies: A History and Filmography, 1926-2010" by Laurence Etling, [33] "DJ Skills: The essential guide to Mixing and Scratching" by Stephen Webber and [34] "The World of DJs and the Turntable Culture" by Todd Souvignier. There are lots more refs with significant coverage of this process. The article is anemic in refs, but refs exist which would allow the article to be improved. Edison (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Appears to fail WP:N, which is not disputed WilyD 15:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer)

Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, this was nominated for proposed deletion by Peacemaker67 with the following rationale:

Nothing that jumps out that would make this gent notable, no sources and only a Major (see WP:SOLDIER)

However since this article has already had a declined PROD under a different rationale (suspected hoax), it is therefore ineligible for proposed deletion. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. kelapstick(bainuu) 12:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks kelapstick, didn't realise it had already been prodded. Google Books search for "Arthur Griffiths" royal tank regiment -wikipedia -"Books, LLC" gets nine hits, all of which are null or some other joker. Google Scholar also comes up empty. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and we wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt on the basis of WP:SOLDIER, as he doesn't have the rank or decorations. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am somewhat sympathetic to having an article on this individual. Two MCs on active service are not insignificant; there is no doubt a story to tell, and he does seem to have been a pioneer of tank warfare. WP:SOLDIER isn't generally a helpful notability guideline. However, I would have expected information for when he was commissioned and promoted (from the Gazette), and where and when information for the the MCs, and the author to have checked the regimental histories for the Royal Tank Regiment, and constructed something from that. There is much to be said for writing your articles properly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Josh Villanueva

Michael Josh Villanueva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources are to non-independent websites (such as sites he contributed to), or to otherwise unreliable sources. Not enough coverage in reliable sources (this coming from a regular Rappler reader). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Springer

Sebastian Springer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I approved this from AfC myself on the basis that it's not too spammy, and presumably Springer meets WP:PROF due to his title as distinguised professor. However, the source for this, Weekly Science, seems like a shaky source. Springers CV doesn't list him as a distinguished professor, nor does the website of his institution. Weekly Science's "articles" section meanwhile contains one single article, and that article is the only source for the title of distinguished professor. Looking at the sources, I don't think this academic meets the general notability guideline. His t index is fairly low too. All in all, I don't think we should have an article on Springer anymore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I spent quite some time looking for reliable third-party references on Springer in German or English and came up empty-handed. The "distinguished Professor" reference seems to be flat-out wrong, and I see no indication that it meets our standards of reliability. Huon (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus due to lack of discussion in 3 weeks. No prejudice against renomination at any time. (non-admin closure) --Jakob (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Investments

Starlight Investments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable company JDDJS (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The 2012 article in The Globe & Mail is a routine report on a deal; it provides a verifiable reference on the firm's existence but I think falls short of demonstrating that it is of encyclopaedic notability. Nor are multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) turning up better. (Note that there are firms of the same name in Texas and Wales.) AllyD (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Maloney

Patrick Maloney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No comment either way on notability, but if this is deleted, could Patrick Maloney (disambiguation) be moved to this page? Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but of course.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Mail

AfDs for this article:
Wolf Mail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2nd nomination, not sure how it survived the first time. Unremarkable musician, referencing mainly his own website. Per this article being up, surely some minor bands I know should have articles too (and I'm sure they'd love to, just like this guy, who links to his own Wikipedia on his own website). See previous nomination -- bydand•talk 08:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I never heard of many of the Australian sources cited here, but upon review they look plenty reliable. The article is a bit of a mess, but the subject is notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to Indian name. No prejudice for recreation if sufficient sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trigunayat

Trigunayat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is very confusing and it is hard to discern what the subject really is. Has no references, and is an orphan other than a talk page of a user that is long inactive. cyberdog958Talk 07:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After reconsideration j⚛e deckertalk 00:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibril Haddad

Gibril Haddad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a tough one, but upon investigation and periodic searching for one year, the subject appears to fall below the relevant notability guidelines. There is a large volume of material written about him on blogs and discussion forums, as well as in self-published books lacking editorial oversight and Wikipedia mirrors. None of these are reliable sources.
There is a literal handful of reliable sources citing web articles the subject has written. The subject was ranked as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world with a small blurb written about him, though the majority of the people in that list don't seem to pass WP:GNG either and I wouldn't argue that alone as a sufficient notability threshhold. The subject also fails both criteria for WP:ANYBIO and all nine for WP:NACADEMICS. There are no guidelines for notability which the subject seems to pass. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My findings concur with those of the nom, my conclusion however is that based on the extent of the discussion of his works, the citations of his works, and his apparent influence I am going to invoke IAR and recommend Keep. If someone can investigate the citation numbers that would be helpful. I also wonder about sources in other languages (Indonesian)? Also, David Livingstone writes of him in Black Terror White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism and the New Age: "Such devotion to Ibn Arabi can be found in other important Sufis like Dr. Gibril Haddad and Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Bouti. Haddad..." Unfortunately the page is missing from Google Books. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Livingston's book is published by CreateSpace ie. self-published. -- GreenC 03:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Green Cardamom, would you describe yourself as leaning either way on this one? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He has a better entry at the WikiIslam (unaffiliated with Mediawiki), that's probably a good place for him since so many sources run afoul of our reliable source rule. I understand Candleabracadabra's position. I don't mind going with Delete to reduce the need for a IAR situation, with the knowledge there is development at WikiIslam so nothing is really lost. If someone wants to create a better entry in the future with reliable source they always can. BTW citation numbers are here. -- GreenC 04:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica1000 07:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 07:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One opinion not considered due sockpuppetry j⚛e deckertalk 15:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Coigney

Sunrise Coigney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

only acted for 4 years, only has 4 credits, mainly notable for being Mark Ruffalo's wife and notability isn't WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject has drawn sufficient coverage in reliable sources to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sufficient coverage? The 3 references on her article are all about her husband with just mentions of her. Which by our general notability guidelines, the subject needs "Significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Also, for Notability (people), it stays for entertainers and actors that
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - She doesn't.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - She doesn't.:
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - She doesn't. - LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Why some invest so much passion and energy in seeking deletion of the marginally notable instead of creating new content or improving existing articles has always been a puzzlement to me. - Dravecky (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I improve articles IF they can be improved, (ex: Hayley Hasselhoff, Maude Apatow, Diem Brown) but if someone is only notable because of their spouse and shouldn't have their own article, then I nominate them. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her husband. Insufficient independent notability (ie. lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources). But her brief cinema and tv career can be noted in her husband's article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 06:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Angry Young Man (film). j⚛e deckertalk 05:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi Sinha

Prachi Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has yet to be in any films-yeah she might have an article but quite a few people will in a news outlet. This is basically just 1 line that looks too soon. Wgolf (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 06:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The series is not unsourcable and under WP:NTEMP it need not receive continued coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too Sane for This World

Too Sane for This World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NF: Lacks reliable sources. No reviews by nationally known critics. Etc. Brycehughes (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm really frustrated by this as a whole. Rotten Tomatoes has two reviews listed for the first, which definitely helps push towards notability. I did find a mini review in the SF Gate by Laura Shumaker, who is considered to be a fairly RS on the subject of autism. I know we've used her as a source in various autism related articles before. I'm not familiar with people associated with autism, but I do know her name so that kind of says something for her. (Which brings it up to 3 reviews.) Now I also found a mention of the second film in a small community newspaper. I'm kind of leery about that one, but it was written by a staff member and it is a fairly lengthy mention. I'm going to hold off in the hopes that Schmidt or other editors can work their magic. It's kind of a neutral/weak keep somewhat on my end at the moment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 06:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A serious and sober effort has been made to find evidence of notability, and even given the ridiculously low bar to jump over, this topic really doesn't clear it properly. It made a splash, once (ok, not a splash, more a quiet plop), then vanished. Sorry, but well done for trying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 11:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Iyer

Arvind Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is the creator of at least 3 films but nothing in the references cover him in any depth. He simply fails WP:GNG with only passing mentions associated with the films. Markus1Kemp (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 – NorthAmerica1000 09:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Batman: Arkham Knight. WP:SNOW close as redirect to Batman: Arkham Knight and protect since it is the second AfD for this (1st AfD); will by extension also protect The Arkham Knight. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arkham Knight

Arkham Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable character of a video game not yet released. Also, the article lacks sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is twice now in as many months that the major contributor has created an article on the subject. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Arkham Knight. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and create protect I was one of the editors who nominated for deletion/redirected (can't remember) this article to the main article. This character is not inherently notable outside the context of the game. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 10:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Knabel

Peter Knabel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject. Short article relies on one source and two external links. Fails GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College Hunks Hauling Junk

College Hunks Hauling Junk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional page for borderline-notable company. The references are press releases, except for the WSJ, and that one article on the firm as a human interest story is not enough to sustain notability. The awards as a trivial as imaginable " Top 50 Franchisee Satisfaction Award"; and the ones for "fastest growing"mean nothing--the term is an euphemism for "not yet knowable . The promotional nature of the article is shown by the coverage of the non-notable founders trivial appearances on TV shows. Of course, there isn;t much else to say. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and cleanup any promotional issues. The company and its founders have also been featured Shark Tank, Millionaire Matchmaker, The Pitch here, an MTV show and House Hunters. In addition to what's already in the article, coverage includes Time magazineand Inc here. Plenty of additional sources per Google. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Struck per WP:EVADE. See User talk:Candleabracadabra. Ivanvector (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 03:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy Delete The article seems to be solely for advertising. WP:ADVERT. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Suttles

James Suttles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only the BoldLife source is a reliable, independent source that is actually about the topic of the article. Others are not reliable, not independent, or contain merely a passing mention of the article's topic (or less). Because we need multiple reliable, independent sources about the topic, notability has not been established.

Additional side-notes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and not sure how this works but I will add my reasons for including this article:

  • He is the Director of Photography on an Academy Award Nominated film. A role that is key to the films success.
  • The Nomination was one of the most controversial nominations in recent history for the academy awards.
  • His film "Red Dirt Rising" had one of the largest independent film premiere ever with over 4000 people attending.

As for responding to the additional side-notes:

  • I was searching online about how to get the article published and a wikipedia article explained all I had to do was move it with detailed instructions. I'm green at this and to be honest the system is quite difficult to understand.
  • As for my name including "film". I just want to be able to create articles about films that I enjoy. I'm confused as to why that would be an issue as film is where my interest is in contributing to wikipedia. I would also think that someone who is an avid follower of films would be a better source of info that someone interested in "Science" or "Astronomy" writing articles about "films". • JLFilm(talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JLFilm (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JLFilm,
If the nomination was indeed very controversial, it should not be difficult to find independent, reliable, third-party sources that sufficiently cover the topic. If more of those are found then the page can be included. See WP:GNG for more info.
I would also like to apologize about the confusion involved in the AfC process. Currently come changes are being discussed, but the intent is for article writers (like yourself) to wait for a review from a reviewing editor who will either accept the article and move it to the mainspace or reject the article and tell the article writer what changes need to be made. This is done to help new editors not have their pages deleted from the mainspace. Unfortunately, AfC usually gets very clogged and backlogged, so you probably were waiting awhile.
Lastly, I apologize for implying things about your username. I assumed that your username was the name of a company affiliated in some way with the article topic.
TheCascadian 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TheCascadian,
I'll add more links to the article relating to the controversy now. I am assuming that is the best method as opposed to adding them here?
No offense taken, as I was just confused as to the issue with my name but your explanation makes complete sense. What I am beginning to understand is that there is not the typical admin roles and restrictions that you typically see with website and that everyone can edit and contribute equally but an emphasis is put on follow the proper procedure. That's great and such a community oriented approach. I'll be sure to research more before jumping the gun again. Thanks. JLFilm (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and add them if you like. Just make sure that if they are being used to establish notability they must be independent (no affiliation), reliable (no blogs, etc), and actually cover the topic of the article (no passing mentions, at least a decently sized paragraph about the topic.
There are admins here, but it is more that they are given additional "janitorial" privileges to block/ban users and delete pages, etc.
Lastly, when you are commenting on talk pages, it is standard to use colons to indicate who is saying what. So for example if you are the first one to comment, you use no colons. The next person who comments below them puts one colon before what they write. The next person two, etc. It just makes the formatting a lot nicer and easier to follow. (so since I am using three colons on this one, you use four on the next). Welcome to Wikipedia, btw. :) TheCascadian 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Benshemesh

Mordechai Benshemesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the sources in the article, this person does not appear to meet the notability standards of WP:CREATIVE. Article was created by User:Mordechai Benshemesh so there may be a conflict of interest. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The "Unsung Architects" piece is the most substantial but by its very title is not really making a claim for notability. Multiple searches aren't really turning up anything stronger, so I agree that notability is not demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyD and Ahecht, did you see the new sourcing? czar ♔ 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but while recognising the effort that has gone into adding material on two buildings into the article, they are indicative of the work done through the subject's career (as any professional must do) rather than evidence of notability. I can't see the book on "Melbourne Architecture" and am possibly unfairly judging by assuming the single page reference to be a passing mention - if it is instead the first page of an entire chapter on the subject and his work, then that would indicate notability. The WP:CREATIVE criteria do set a high bar (higher than say for professional footballers) but I am not seeing which is/are met here? AllyD (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His most famous building - Edgewater Towers in St Kilda is considered as one of Melbourne's iconic buildings. It has recently been included in the Open House Melbourne Program and has undergone substantial refurbishment over the last 5 years. This building was the first privately built highrise in Melbourne pre-dating Robin Boyd's Domain Park Apartments in South Yarra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgewaterTowers (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 June 2014 (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 / 02:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have provided sufficient additional independent verifable references and re-formatted the article. It is highly unlikely that the original author is the author of the article given he died in 1993.Dan arndt (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing result to no consensus per discussion on my talk page, especially the sources [53] and [54]. Inability to read a language is not a valid reason to deny a source. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Ng

Philip Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Martial artist who fails WP:MANOTE. He also doesn't appear to meet the notability standards for actors and no reliable sources are referenced.Mdtemp (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With one exception, those articles are just a list of movies he's appeared in or about Linda Chung (his long-time girl friend). Notability is not inherited.Mdtemp (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content on the web in regards to his body of work as a martial arts actor and action director can easily be found. Hong Kong media tends to focus on gossip and personal relationships among their artistes so articles regarding his rumored relationship would naturally appear more often in searches. Notability should not be inherited but it often is, but in his case if he was not notable in his field, the Hong Kong press would not give him any coverage regardless of who he is dating or not dating. . E.g., this, this, this, this.

— Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that none of these show independent coverage from a reliable source. I'll wait to see if better sources are added before voting. Papaursa (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do WP:GNG states as one of its criteria - " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Each article listed addresses him (the topic) directly and in detail. i.e. this this, this,this,this,this,this,this All reliable independent and third party sources reporting directly about him. A simple search on Google or any other search engine will bring up many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources mentioned earlier do not show significant independent coverage from reliable sources. As for this bunch of sources you just mentioned that are in Chinese, my translate program doesn't do much with these. The ones I got didn't meet the necessary standards and the others I can't evaluate. As stated in WP:V, I would like to see some independent translations of the material to show it's not just more of the same type coverage you've been using (i.e., sources that don't meet WP:GNG). It's an English WP and the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Astudent0 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states as one of its criteria - "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Note that articles can be in any language. This subject meets all the criteria for Notability according to all the guidelines listed WP:GNG All the delete voters just state that the articles listed by the Keep voters are not reliable or independent without stating how they are so. While I have on more than one occasion stated criteria listed in the Wikipedia guidelines that all of the listed articles meet. And each article or video listed are from internationally recognized third party media organizations which a simple internet search can confirm, so not sure why we are going in circles debating clear evidence as a number of the listed articles are in English that is written or translated by the actual source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this debate is notability of the subject matter, which over the course of this debate seems more like a subjective matter rather than an objective one, thus evolving guidelines are set by Wikipedia to maintain a certain status quo in articles being published. WP:N#NCONTENT - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." As each of the various media coverage sources listed by the Keep voters meet all criteria listed by Wikipedia's guidelines and the fact that a simple internet query will show ample and easily accessible information about the subject strongly points to the subject notability in his field. If fellow editors feel the article is poorly written or could be formatted better, please help improve it or offer insight on how. The debate now is Keeping or Deleting this article based on the subject's notability, which evidence has been brought forth by the Keep voters to assert clearly. While I agree that Wikipedia should not be a repository of all information, Wikipedia SHOULD list articles on subjects that a number of the public would like to find out more about (i.e. Notability). For example, if I come across an article in Wikipedia on [this] film, I enjoy the fact that I can find links to other independent entries on Wikipedia about the film's lead actors so I can learn more about them. The subject of this debate meets the criteria for Notability set forth by this community, if anyone disagrees, please state why. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Others have stated why they believe he's not notable and you responded with a missive against a straw man argument. Claiming those articles "meet all criteria listed by Wikipedia's guidelines" is false when sites like IMDB, chinesemovies.com, and his family's martial arts page clearly are not independent AND reliable. (I don't know how reliable some of the others are, but I hope you see my point). In addition, it's reasonable to claim that the articles on his girl friend that mention him are "passing mentions" and not "significant" coverage. The last bunch of articles you mentioned are all in Chinese and my computer translation makes them a garbled mess that prevents me from figuring out what they're talking about. Astudent0 is correct when he says the burden of proof is on you. Right now I'm on the fence--I think he may well be notable, but I'm not yet seeing the sources that clearly show me that. Papaursa (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I have been asking to see better sources for several weeks because I couldn't find the coverage I felt is necessary to show he meets GNG, and none has been provided. I will reconsider if additional sources are provided. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hoffmann

Jerry Hoffmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created in German and listed at WP:Pages needing translation into English. I translated it and added a couple of references, but I can find very little about this actor, and he does not appear to have been in sufficient major productions to satisfy the specific notability criteria for actors. It should be noted that the article was created with two references about the forthcoming Grzimek film, but these are mere name checks (and misspell his last name 'Hofmann'), and that although both his online résumé and the article claim that his role in Shahada, Samir, was a major one, I can't find any independent mention of it or of his being in the film. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i reviewed your translated article. I can prove most of the facts. There is a problem about the not-mentioning in the movie shahada, cause he changed his screen name. Looking up his pictures jerry hoffmann is the same like jeremias acheampong! So, no need for deletion! Alisson335 16:18, 10 May 2014

An IP editor has claimed the same thing, but we need a 3rd-party reference saying that for him to be able to get credit for the film role (It seems "Samir" = "Sammi"?). Have you found one? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different credits that spell the name both 'samir' and 'sammi'. http://www.berlinale.de/external/de/filmarchiv/doku_pdf/20103879.pdf On the webpage of the movie they also call him both ways: http://www.shahada-der-film.de/info.html Just add the 'born Jeremias Acheampong' to make all the references clear and easy to connect to one actor. (User talk:Prof Donald B) 1:50, 11 May 2014

  • Comment: That does have both Samir and Sammi, thanks! But can you find a reference to his having changed his professional name from the one credited there to Jerry Hoffmann? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013 he has been selected as a talent of the berlinale. They both present him under hoffmann and have a reference to 'shahada'. They are very selective and must have double checked, also shahada was premiered in their own competition. Also there are pictures mentioning both names http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/HORCu95LjOk/60th+Berlin+Film+Festival+Shahada+Premiere/Q9fWaQwu5OT/Jerry+Hoffmann http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Jerry+Hoffmann/60th+Berlin+Film+Festival+Shahada+Premiere/FzjVMlXQG45 http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/HORCu95LjOk/60th+Berlin+Film+Festival+Shahada+Premiere/Q9fWaQwu5OT/Jerry+Hoffmann (User talk:Prof Donald B) 23:12, 12 May 2014

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sankar (film director). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oru valakilukkathinte Oarmakku

Oru valakilukkathinte Oarmakku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page doesnt meet notability criteria, first two links on internet searches are WP articles the next doxeon were translation sites that appear to have cached the translation Amortias (T)(C) 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. slakr\ talk / 23:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsford motorcycles

Abbotsford motorcycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and according to the article "very little information seems to have survived." MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what does that volume say about this company ? I've searched the NLA Trove list of newspapers from the period and found zero mentions of this company, not even advertisements. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are other sources including Alle Motorräder 1894 bis heute and Enzyklopädie des Motorrads. It's the searches which produce results which matter; not the ones that don't. Andrew (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to preview the sources to ascertain the depth of coverage about the company, though. NorthAmerica1000 12:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Northamerica1000's sources may be sufficient to establish notability. Would like to discuss the articles as a group as mentioned by Dennis Bratland above. — Brianhe (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland)

Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, was tagged as dubious in 2011, no effort has been made to find a secondary source. I cannot find one either. 123chess456 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A 2001 article in The Independent says they are "considered very influential" ([55], via Questia, subscription required). The same newspaper has a 2010 column by Dominic Lawson about/against them ([56], also via Questia). Neither these nor the various other pieces of shock-horror media coverage returned by Questia makes it as a reference for the article as such but they are indicative of continuing coverage. AllyD (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the size of the article four primary sources for references and very little significant coverage (that I can find). Murry1975 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by AllyD establish GNG. This article may need to be cleaned up and made concise. An argument that we delete an article because it is too long for the number of sources is unheard of. Valoem talk contrib 17:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point being ONE RS and four self published sources are not enough sources for an article of that size and none of them show substantial independent coverage that would lead to an article being kept. Cleaning it up would leave the info from one RS and would fail WP:GNG for multiple sources for articles. Murry1975 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Staberinde's argument has already been disproven by AllyD. Murry's argument is that the content is not cited, but NGOs are a reliable source of their stated principles. It is like quoting the Constitution as a source for statements defining its content. Unless someone decides to raise SYNTH as an objection, which I laugh at in advance, I think we are done here. Anarchangel (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading AllyD's comment (I cant check those sources myself) I personally didn't read out a confirmation that it satisfies WP:GNG as "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also I would note that AllyD didn't vote either way so I guess he/she isn't so sure either.--Staberinde (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hey @AllyD, I have Questia access and I can't find the articles you mentioned (either by your links or via searching). Can you relink them? czar ♔ 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nominator suggested he would withdraw the nomination after a couple of days of article improvement. Others have since added/fixed sources and so I'm taking that work as sufficient to address at least some of the nominator's concerns and am closing this. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmer Amina Carter High School

Wilmer Amina Carter High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 since creation in 2007 and no indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as schools are generally notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by OP. I don't mind keeping the article at all. I saw it when checking on IP edits related to another article. As it was tagged unreferenced for 4+ years, "something" needed to be done. If we can close this AfD and get article improvement, I will be happy. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC) PS: I'll probably let this AfD run for a day or two, and then withdraw the nomination as a speedy keep. 04:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A public high school, extensive continuing coverage is evident from the usual searches, including 625 matching news articles at HighBeam [58]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. TLSuda (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NIRDA

NIRDA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly notable, but too promotional to rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is pretty evenly split between "Keep" and "Merge", but there's an obvious consensus not to delete the content. Suggest listing this at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to test if there's a consensus for that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tara (cat)

Tara (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one is a doozy. If WP:BLP1E would apply, this is it. The cat Tara is only provided in context of this one event, in tons of news coverage. Albeit substantial news coverage in reliable sources and a viral Youtube video, I believe that this is a clearcut case of WP:NOTNEWS in this instance. Tutelary (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cats. It clearly is an example of WP:NOTNEWS, but it can be cut down and made into an entry on the list of cats article, and be recreated on a later date if the cat receives lasting and enduring coverage(which may happen as many viral videos tend to live on and spread). If there was a List of viral videos article then it could also be added there.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLC1E. No, Redirect and merge with List of cats. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and Redirect) to List of cats per Ai and Cullen.--Seduisant (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (do not merge or redirect) per nominator's "single event" rationale. I disfavor redirection because the topic lacks significant notability, and disfavor merging because the Tara is already listed in List of cats with an appropriate amount of coverage. I just added a bit more to the sentence about Tara on List of cats, and included a reference, which I think should be there regardless of what happens with this article; there would have been more reason to merge info when the above "merge" votes were recommended. There are two side stories I've seen related to Tara, one is about the cat being honored by throwing out the first pitch in a charity promotion by the town's minor league baseball team (ESPN), and the other about a brief online store presence cashing in on the cat's fame (Metro, TMZ), but they're in such a close timeframe to the initial story that they don't demonstrate the type of sustained coverage expected for notable topics. Agyle (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this more, and maintain the same vote, but wanted to respond to User:GRuban pointing out below that WP:BLP1E is for people; it's a good point, as BLP1E is specifically geared toward protecting the privacy of low-profile living people, presumably for legal and ethical reasons most people would not extend to animals, so I wouldn't consider it here. I think WP:ONEEVENT, which is similar but geared more toward topic importance, is a better guideline to consider; it still refers to people, but I think Tara is analagous enough that much of what it says still makes sense. One of the issues it raises is should there be an article about the individual (in this case Tara), about the event, or articles about both. In this case, a third possibility is an article about the YouTube video. In addition to the general notability guidelines, I considered the guidelines for people, events (WP:EVENT) and films (WP:FILM), and any angle about this just seems to fall short of established guidelines. While some aspects of WP:GNG are met, those guidelines also caution that "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." (Again, Tara is a cat rather than person, but the subject seems reasonably analogous). In the future, the cat, the video, or the event could meet notability requirements for any number of reasons, but right now all lack appropriate historical significance. Agyle (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The story of how Tara saved Jeremy has become a story of international note, and keeping a separate article devoted to the story would be most helpful for someone seeking information on this event in the future. Wikipedia has the "list of cats" topic; but how many people know that Wikipedia has a "list of cats" subject for people to reference. In the future, when someone learns of this story and wants the details, they are going to be searching Wikipedia for "Tara" and not "list of cats" Krell Altair IV (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability on Wikipedia, It's widely being reported in Japan. Now, She is a famous cat. FNN JNN ANN [59] [60] [61] etc. also Ceremonial first pitch, Reporters came from Deutschland and Japan. ([62] [63] [64])--Benzoyl (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BLP1E is meant to protect people from negative effects of publicity. Not cats; cats aren't going to be applying for jobs or being checked for notoriety when crossing a border. This is a fine story, which received international coverage, and more attention than most of the contents of Category:Individual cats. --GRuban (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to have second thoughts about my perhaps too-hasty Delete recommendation (above). I'm reminded of Scarlett (cat), a similar article, which deals with a "one-event" cat. Scarlett rescued her kittens, one by one, from a burning building, and suffered grave injury in the process. Since Scarlett's event occurred in 1996, there was no Internet storm of recognition, but she became famous anyway. So I'm coming around to thinking Keep. (Also check out Room 8 for a similar cat scenario, this one a "one event, year after year" occurrence.) --Seduisant (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those two examples provide a good contrast for topics that I do think are notable. Scarlett (cat) was famous for one event, but was the subject of three books, published up to ten years after the event occurred. Room 8 was also a subject of a book, regular news coverage spanning 15 years about the cat's life rather than an event, and inspired the Room 8 Memorial Foundation that was active at least from 1972 to 2013 (more than 40 years). If there are books or documentaries made about Tara, or even ongoing news coverage about the cat in coming years, it would establish notability, but a viral video from a week ago hasn't yet demonstrated the "sustained coverage" described in WP:15MOF or "lasting significance" in WP:LASTING. Agyle (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of roman republic

End of roman republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like someone's undergraduate essay. I tried to make it more readable, but I'm not sure how well I did. Maybe this could be beaten into shape with a lot of work, but I think the best solution is to userfy or delete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:TNT Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsalvageable. Material on this subject should be in Roman republic and/or Augustus but it isn't worth merging anything into those articles, which are fairly well developed already. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above opinions. I think official Wikipedia guidelines (WP:TNT is merely an essay) preclude deletion; the AfD guidelines in WP:BEFORE say "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." However, this is a case where I think common sense should overrule the explicit guidelines. It looks like a good read, and I appreciate someone's efforts including it here, but the style is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Agyle (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Birdemic: Shock and Terror . j⚛e deckertalk 01:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Moore

Whitney Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find enough references for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Plus, the subject is really only known for the Birdemic: Shock and Terror movie. Even the far more notable director, James Nguyen, doesn't have an article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Bagh

Note: Before nominating these, I asked for comments at Talk:Birdemic: Shock and Terror#Alan Bagh and Whitney Moore.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolentlambast patrol records 00:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bagh

Alan Bagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find enough references for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Plus, the subject is really only known for the Birdemic: Shock and Terror movie. Even the far more notable director, James Nguyen, doesn't have an article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Moore

Note: Before nominating these, I asked for comments at Talk:Birdemic: Shock and Terror#Alan Bagh and Whitney Moore.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_May_18&oldid=610155565"