Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 April	14 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Kovach

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

BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not large enough for its councillors to count as notable on that basis, and as an unsuccessful candidate for higher office — neither of which is a sufficient claim of notability to get a person past WP:POLITICIAN. While there is sourcing here, it's exclusively local and fails to demonstrate that she actually warrants permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. No prejudice against future recreation if she ever wins election to a more notable office, but it's a delete as things currently stand. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Again Dan!

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

Non-notable book. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less than 50 worldcat holdings. Neither the author nor his books are the least notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reviews or significant coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MikesiOSHelp

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

No indication of notability; it mentions his subscriber count of 15000, but that isn't particularly high (the second reference indicates that this puts him at 42731st most subscribers on YouTube). IagoQnsi (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It actually wouldn't even matter whether his subscriber count was genuinely high or not; no number of YouTube subscribers confers notability in and of itself, if it can be sourced only to an automated stat counter and not to any proper coverage of the YouTuber in real reliable sources — and reliable sourcing is exactly what's lacking here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Creek

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

Dormant since creation (15:33, 2005 July 11). Only one blue link. Smarkflea (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Smarkflea (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per improvements. User:Smarkflea, could you look it over in its new form and consider withdrawing your nomination? Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as well. No basis for deletion. —radiojon (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Legitimate dab page, even if the articles linked within it are dreadful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Javid Mirza

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

BLP of a person notable primarily as an unsuccessful election candidate, which is not a claim of notability that passes WP:POLITICIAN. All of the other substantive content here is exclusively local and "inside baseball" in import, and lacks any compelling evidence that he warrants permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only notability, I also had the hard time with all those unclear references. Noteswork (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect. It needs additional citations for verification but WP:GNG doesn't fail . Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 11:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Executive apartment

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

Seems to be a minor bit of terminology that has no real notability (WP:NOTDICTIONARY) IagoQnsi (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending sourcing, otherwise merge and redirect into Executive home.--Pink Bull 00:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheer C.P.S.

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

Cheerleading squad of a 500-student school in Chile. Made two trips to the US. No indication of notability. Zanhe (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear systemic bias over here (just because it is not an US/European team does not mean it is non notable in this English-language Wikipedia). The article is supported by national and international sources, they have been recognized by the (former) President of Chile, and have had some sort of triumph in their US trips. Clearly WP:NOTABLE complying. Küñall (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re accusation of systemic bias: I have also PROD'ed Texas Rangers Six Shooters. In the Category:Cheerleading organizations, there isn't a single article for a high school cheerleading squad. -Zanhe (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an inclusionist, my belief is that an article is well referenced, it should not be deleted. This article is one of those. With 19 references in total (9 local, 6 regional, 3 national, and another one from social networks), it is a definite proof that this subject is notable; it complies with all of the WP:GNG points. Küñall (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Team is largely unknown outside Pichilemu (and perhaps outside its school). Kuñal, you should absolutely move a lot of Pichilemu stuff over to a special Wikia about Pichilemu. This team is just one of many irrelevant articles related to Pichilemu (e.g. Pichilemu post-office building). Sietecolores (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sietecolores, I don't understand what's your problem with Pichilemu-related stuff. I don't get why you even suggest me to move to Wikia. Really, what's your problem? The team does not exist anymore (it disbanded last year), and references of national relevance (La Tercera, 24 Horas) prove the team is notable outside home. Besides, as I pointed above, it is GNG compliant. Küñall (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, "Team is largely unknown outside Pichilemu (and perhaps outside its school)" is largely a personal appreciation. Sources in the article prove the contrary. --Küñall (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - A one time mention in La Tercera is not enough to idnicate notability. I have personally also been mentioned in El Mercurio, yet that does not make me notable for an own article in Wikipedia. I suggest you to mention this team in a general article about Sport in Pichilemu. Sietecolores (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:GNG says the contrary; the article of La Tercera is an in-depth one about them. The collection of sources used in the article establish its notability. Disregarding that it comes from a high school, a college, or whatever. Küñall (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, but tiny local newspapers like Pichilemu News (edited by a person you probably know) and El Rancahuaso are difficult to use to establish encyclopedic notability. Sietecolores (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't get why you keep on making unjustified, personal presumptions ((edited by a person you probably know)) and which have no relation with the article's content. Like it or not, the article has relevant sources which, as I have said repeatedly, make it GNG, WP:NOTABLE compliant, and so it should be kept. --Küñall (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope your sources are not relevant. Pichilemu News can hardly be used to establish notability for a Pichilemu article. You haven't still mentioned if you know personally or not the editor of Pichilemu News. Why do I ask this? To avoid a WP:COI. Sietecolores (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school cheerleading squads are no more notable than any other high school sports teams, clubs, societies, choirs, bands or whatever. Doesn't matter where they come from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dashgyn Gulmammadov

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

The article has already been deleted once. Its original creator revived it practically with the same content, even though the article had originally been deleted precisely for multiple content related reasons, such as copyright violation, not meeting general notability guidelines, paragraphs and paragraphs of unsourced and clearly exaggerated statements, and an apparent case of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Parishan (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant self-commercialisation, low notability if any. Jaqeli (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Moses

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an unsuccessful candidate for political office, which is not a claim that passes WP:POLITICIAN. While the earlier deletion discussion was withdrawn by the nominator on the grounds of her prior work as a civil servant, the problem is that the content about her work as a civil servant is not sourced to contemporary coverage which demonstrates that she was gaining media attention for that work at the time it was happening, but to after the fact mentions of her work as a civil servant within sources that are specifically about her candidacies. Which in turn means that the notability of her work as a civil servant has not been properly demonstrated, since the weight of sourcing is sitting entirely on her election campaigns. And further, even in the original discussion the "consensus" was actually a 50-50 split once you account for the nominator's withdrawal and the anonymous IP who argued that her candidacy itself made her a keep (which it doesn't). I'm certainly willing to withdraw this nomination if the sourcing can be improved to contemporaneous coverage of her prior work, but as currently written and sourced the article does not adequately demonstrate that she's notable enough for other things to get around her lack of notability as a politician. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates a almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Turmel

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for office, which is not normally a claim of notability sufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeoGen

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

Subject fails WP:CORP. Sources appear to be limited to financial websites quoting stock prices. A Google turned up nothing that rang the notability bell. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Passes WP:CORP per WP:LISTED, New York Times, Yahoo Finance. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just took another look at LISTED and this looks weak at best. LISTED does not abrogate the requirement for sources beyond mere affirmations of it's existence and current stock prices. But I will defer if a strong consensus among other editors says I'm being too narrow in my reading of CORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also passes WP:GNG per NYTimes topic, Market Watch, and Seeking Alpha, multiple WP:RS. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are only citing financial fact sheets that exist for almost every publicly traded company in the United States and most of the developed world. These are not analyst reports or in depth coverage beyond the financial equivalent to acknowledging something exists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note however, I did just notice that the company has over a billion dollars in market capitalization. Billion dollar companies generally ring the notability bell for me. I'm going to take a closer look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are on the links supplied by the website I linked. It even breaks down PR to news and yes market cap is over $1 billion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AfD nom The article is in need of better references, but it is a billion dollar company that's on the NASDAQ. That's enough to push it over the goal line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blair MacLean

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful election candidate, which is not a claim of notability that passes WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed candidates are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary Oak School

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

Entirely non-notable private prep/pre-prep school. Note: article has been deleted twice previously, recently for just that reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the town or school district, per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete normally I would be happy with a redirect where there was something of interest in the article, but this one is entirely without merit.. Let's get rid. If someone wants to mention the school in the village article then so be it, but I see no reason to keep a redirect too. Atlas-maker (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note from the article history that the creator I has the same name as the Headteacher. WP:COI does not stand for coincidence. This is an WP:ADVERT I think. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Clarke (politician)

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

Article which makes no substantive claim that its subject passes WP:POLITICIAN — the only claims of notability here are a city council seat, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its councillors, and an unsuccessful candidacy for higher office. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has never held more than local office and not enough coverage beyond that to justify article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchak Abadi

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

This new article seemed very interesting, but its references circled back a home page from the good rabbi's temple. A Google search produced no independent verification that this gentleman is a "prominent leader" in U.S. or global Orthodox Judaism, as the article claims. I am suspecting this falls very short of WP:BIO, and I would invite my fellow editors to confirm or reject my suspicions. Thank you, and Happy Passover for those who celebrate that beautiful holiday. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here http://askrabbimaroof.blogspot.com/2006/03/rabbi-abadis-website.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasry02 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the words "a prominent leader of Orthodox Judaism in the United States and around the world" are a little overdone, as is the accepted style in some circles where every serious rabbi is immediately called "leader of his generation" and "venerable sage". Nevertheless, there are some additional sources in the article already, and the article looks acceptable. Debresser (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he is definitely a well-known and WP:NOTABLE rabbi in the United States for long time yet, as the WP:RS and WP:V sources point out. IZAK (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am satisfied with the improvements to the references and will be glad to withdraw the AfD. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Downes

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

Article which makes no substantive claim that its subject passes WP:POLITICIAN — the only claims of notability here are a city council seat, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its councillors, and unsuccessful candidacies for higher office. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page creator back in '07. It was repeatedly recreated as a copyright violation from the campaign website (if I remember correctly), I have no objections. So I guess per Bearcat, and lack of coverage outside routine coverage from Kingston news. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact if this diff shows no other significant authors Bearcat you could delete it under WP:CSD#G7. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so in this case — there's too much back-and-forthing in the edit history over the includability or non-includability of the conflict of interest allegation. Even if the end result is that the article is substantively identical in its current form to what you originally wrote, the edit history over time is too complex for me to feel comfortable stating that there's only been one substantive author. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Rogers (politician)

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

Article which makes no substantive claim that its subject passes WP:POLITICIAN; the only claims of notability here are a city council seat, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors, and unsuccessfully running for election to the House of Commons. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill campaigny fluff piece for a low level elected city official. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politician who tired and failed in running for a higher office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hutchison

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

Politician whose only claims of notability are that he has served as a city councillor, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors, and that he has run unsuccessfully in federal elections — neither of which is a claim that passes WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Arnott Hicks

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

While Wikipedia did once have a consensus that being a candidate for the leadership of a registered political party was a sufficient claim of notability in and of itself, that is no longer the case. Now, a person must also have a more substantive claim of notability alongside that to qualify for an article — but that has not been demonstrated here, as the only other claim of notability here is an unsuccessful candidacy for a House of Commons seat. Delete — I would recommend redirection to an article about the leadership race itself as an alternative, but all we have is an omnibus list whose only content about the 1950 contest is a raw table of the vote totals, and thus a redirect would serve no useful purpose here. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Wedding Inc.

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

Non-notable company with a lack of significant coverage. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software company article of unclear notability. A search turns up no RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. My searching also turned up no significant coverage, and none is supplied at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bell (inventor)

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

Politician and businessman whose article makes no substantive or well-sourced claim of encyclopedic notability. His notability as a politician boils down to a city council seat, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors, and a withdrawn candidacy in a federal election; his notability as a businessman is exclusively local, and is sourced disproportionately to a database of patent applications rather than to very much in the way of actual reliable source coverage that properly demonstrates the notability of any of his patents. In addition, there's a probable WP:COI here, as the article was created by User:Guelphgreen. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass any notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus in this discussion is for the article to be retained in main namespace. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acayucan bus crash

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

While a tragic accident, it is simply a traffic accident with no apparent larger scope or long-term notability. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. Contested PROD. MASEM (t) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I try not to vote in AFDs for articles I created and so I won't here. However, I am curious where people like you and Medeis--who have repeatedly asserted that this event has no long-term significance--are getting your crystal balls which enable you to predict whether this event will have such significance, since I think the ability to predict the future would be pretty cool. Jinkinson talk to me 20:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL cuts both ways — we cannot assert or assume that the event will have any long-term significance, either. Rather, the appropriate response here is to wait until some long-term significance actually emerges before we start an article, rather than getting into tinkling contests about who is or isn't committing the worse CRYSTAL violation. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Bearcat says - we discourage article creation on the spur of the moment, per NEVENT, until you're clear there's long term notability. If you want to write about an instant event, that's what Wikinews is for, but not WP. And I have reviewed the sources and this all seems like a pure accident with no malicious intent, an act of human error. There is very little likelihood this is going to have any notability in the future. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Bearcat says, it cuts both ways. We do discourage such quick creations, but once they happen we also discourage quick deletion nominations. They are rarely productive and usually result in no consensus closes because it is difficult to properly assess the event and so opinions are split. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a chance I felt this could have been expanded, sure, I would have waited. But all signs said "this was a traffic accident" and thus it has no place on WP per WP:NOT#NEWS even with time for the article to improve. We need people to use Wikinews for these things, and then if they become more than just a traffic accident, transwiki them into en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice against recreation if and when some long-term significance can actually be demonstrated for this event, but at the present time this is a delete per NOTNEWS. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy incubate The nom and the author agree that wp:notability cannot be assessed at this time. I suggest that an event like this incubate for a minimum of two weeks. Note that the five references in the article show world-wide coverage: CBS News. Washington Post. Businessweek. Abc.net.au. and Reuters. Unscintillating (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - accidents (even traffic accidents) that kill dozens of people are virtually guaranteed to have lasting significance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't, at least not for standard civilian automotive accident - that's just a result of human error. We need long-lasting, non-local significant to meet WP:N and WP:NEVENT require. There is a slim chance that some law or regulation will be passed if this was determined to have been a preventable accident, but that's a CRYSTAL assumption, and even if such a law was passed, we don't document all such laws either. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, no they aren't, where is your evidence? Notability is based on evidence, not your opinion about the future. Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, TB, I don't see lasting signicifcant...but my minds openLihaas (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am basing my comment off experience - there are normally investigations, official government responses, memorials, etc. that make the news in cases like these. Per ComputerJA's comment below, apparently that is already happening here. When a handful of people die in a random accident such things do not happen. That is the difference. NOTNEWS is intended to cover very much one-off events (today's baseball game, the latest comments made by a politician, a crime report) that makes the news once (or maybe twice over two days) only, not everything that someone might consider "routine". --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's CRYSTAO BALL exactly. Committees issue lots of reports, should we have a WP page for them all? Wwhats the legacy fo this incident?Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thaddeus is right. When so many people die, a disaster will have an enduring notability. If you have a look at List of road accidents (2010–present), virtually all of the accidents that killed this many people have articles - as indeed do plenty of ones that killed fewer people. And a train or air disaster with this many deaths would never get deleted, despite the fact that the argument about a lack of long-term significance would have just as much force.
- Only 16 of those (200-some?) have articles. The rest just have news article links. Also, most of those are ones that either involved normally controlled commuter/public transit (like trains). Major traffic accidents are covered internationally but per WP:N bursts of news coverage is not sufficient for notability and we are not a newspaper. Note that I have not reviewed the 16 articles linked in that list to judge their quality. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Masem, I said that most of the ones that killed this many people have articles. Of course, most of the disasters on the list don't have article, but then most of them didn't kill as many people. Neljack (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And a few of those that I've spotchecked are as "bad" as this one for being WP:NOT#NEWS, eg 2010 Peru bus crash. Notability requires more than a short burst of coverage,that all these stories otherwise get on the days of and following the accident, but enduring coverage showing a larger impact to the world at large. Wikinews is more appropriate for these stories. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete' p er nomLihaas (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I think this article will not reach it to ITN, it does hold some potential for a good quality piece. There is a lot of information about the accident, the aftermath, and the investigation from Mexican sources. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What aftermath? There was an accident, people died, end of story, as best as I can tell. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The governors of Tabasco and Veracruz getting together and seeing how they will provide financial/some other kid of aid to the families of those involved in the accident (sources: [1] [2]). If this article stays in its current state, however, I don't think this matters at all. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve - In general it's a good article and per above a lot more could be added -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 36 deaths and plenty of coverage of this. If this was a coach full of school kids on holiday in the French Alps, then it would probably be ITN material. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delay assessment as per WP:RAPID Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a popular ongoing issue. However some improvement is required. Noteswork (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should consider any accident causing 36 deaths to be notable, despite what some will trot out about numbers of deaths not being relevant and NOTNEWS applying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Death count has never been a factor in determining notability - it is enduring significant coverage. Events with larger death counts will tend towards that, but that's not a factor to consider article appropriateness. You have to ask if this will even have the possibility of being a event of worldwide interest within a week, a month, or even a year, and the answer, 99% of the time, is no, since it was simply an accident. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evidently you didn't spot my attempt to pre-empt your comments! Ah well! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did read them, and pointed out its a fallacy against current policy and guidelines. We retain articles based on coverage in secondary sources, which this type of event is not likely going to generate. (Newspaper coverage to date are primary sources). We don't use factors like death count, cost, etc. to determine notability. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number of casualties should be taken into account, in my opinion. And this meets the threshold. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your opinion, but that is not policy, and policy is what is judged at AfD, not opinion. If you believe the policy should be chaged, then fine, but that isn't something that's done at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only does this easily pass WP:GNG, the actual basic notability guideline, but the sheer number of deaths and public condolences from the President of Mexico confirms strong notability. I've seen this many times when an article of an event is created soon after the event; some editors take advantage of the lack of passing of time as some kind of validation that the event "fails" WP:NEVENT as no one can prove at the time of AfD the lasting impact. WP:RUSH is not needed. --Oakshade (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not true. All the sources are primary sources, newspaper articles simply reporting on the event. The only possible secondary source is the mention of the condolences given by the gov't, and that's stretching the idea. Death count is no factor in notability considerations - it's enduring coverage which has not been show (news dries out after the 14th on this). In general, a traffic accident that does not involve things likes trains or planes is just a traffic accident, a tragic affair but absolutely not a notable topic in considering the scope of an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. Never had to do this one before. I think you need to read WP:SECONDARY to brush up on the basic difference between a "primary" source and a "secondary" one. As WP:PRIMARY states, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." If the bus crash itself, or perhaps a survivor involved in the crash, were the publisher of the source, then that would be a "primary" source. If a third party is the publisher (ie newspaper), then that is a "secondary" source. In this case we have multiple secondary independent sources reporting extensively on the crash.--Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's more on that page than just that one sentence. It's been long held that secondary sources are ones that transform information from other sources to make claims, which newspaper reports simply reporting, and not commenting on the story, are doing. This is outlined at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. (Note this doesn't mean all newspaper stories are primary, but most, like the ones in this article, simply re-iterating events as they are learned, are primary). Even if you reject that, GNG says that a burst of coverage is not a sign of notability - we're looking at a pretty tight 48hr window here where coverage exists, and that also fails the GNG. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah that old curious contradicting essay (not guideline or policy). I didn't include all of WP:PRIMARY (which by the way is an actual policy) because I can't quote an entire page. If you'd like another quote from WP:PRIMARY, "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident;" So if the sources of this event were published by the accident witness, according to WP:PRIMARY, that's a primary source. The sources in this case were not published by the accident witnesses but news outlets. --Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm just repeating what has been practice - straight up newspaper stories recapping but not analyzing the events of a news story are primary sources. The better question to be asking is "are these secondary sources per our language" as opposed are "these are not primary sources", since we need secondary sources for the GNG. And per the policy, these "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." (emphasis mine) Which straight up news stories are not. That's why that essay lays out that newspaper stories are generally primary because they fail to have the requirement for secondary sources. (And yes, this is a question asked lots at WT:NOR as you see in the archives, which supports the notion that recent news reports w/o analysis, simply reiterating details, are primary works, eg [3], [4] and others there) --MASEM (t) 03:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Practice has been following policy, not a narrow redefining as what is "one step removed" from an event. Anyway, I'm not interested in having a fringe meta discussion about the philosophy of what some people consider primary in an AfD. Last word doesn't mean that opinion stands. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pharand

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

Person whose only substantive claim of notability is having been an unsuccessful candidate for the leadership of a political party — while there was once a time when Wikipedia accepted that as a claim of notability in its own right, our inclusion policies have evolved and such a person no longer passes WP:POLITICIAN unless a more substantive claim of notability (e.g. having actually held a notable office, etc.) can be made alongside it. While this article does cite reliable sources, further, every single one of them is dated between February 1 and 12, 1971 — February 12 being the date of the convention — thus failing to demonstrate that he ever became a topic of sustained notability outside of a single two-week period, and thereby violating WP:BLP1E. Delete or redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 1971; we don't need a standalone BLP here. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan J. Orr

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

Promotional article for non-notable executive with a sideline as a part-time academic. Meets neither the GNG nor WP:PROF. The impressive publication count given is for the entire institute of which he is co-director, not him personally. The listing of everywhere he has given a talk add to the reference list, but is appropriate content only for his own website. His firm is not notable, and the only notable people mentioned are his teachers. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 9 is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Not much else except promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: DGG and Xxanthippe say it all. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg McClinchey

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

Politician with no strong claim of notability — the only real claims of notability here are that he was a municipal councillor in a small town and that he was an unsuccessful candidate in a federal election, neither of which are sufficient to get a person past WP:POLITICIAN. Furthermore, all of the sources here are either blurby news briefs or strictly local coverage which aren't sufficient to get him past WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local politician who has nevr successful run for a notable office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Wood

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

I am not comfortable with this article, which I think violates the spirit of child protection and BLP . That her family is having her do these things, and that they are legal, does not make it appropriate to immortalize hem in an encyclopedia. Our standards in these respects are and ought to be higher than the news media. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eeeeewww. I see your point. But on the other hand, I don't know - it is documented and technically notable/seems to pass notability. Personally - VOM. But putting that aside, definitely seems she passes GNG and other stuff... the information is available easily out there. At the risk of incurring howls that I'm being all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, would it be as offensive if it was about a well-established child actor such as Quvenzhané Wallis or a Royal baby such as Prince George of Cambridge? I'm no fan of child beauty pageants (or indeed beauty pageants in general) but despite the fact that this article is nausea-inducing, I don't think it should be censored just for being about a child who's received attention, publicity, and is linked to various things beyond the pageants. Mabalu (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing to delete the article about the pageant, which I agree is notable, and should be covered, though without naming the children. Passing the GNG is not sufficient for keeping an article, because there are other policies involved. The basic one here is WP:BLP, whose principle is do no harm. The child is used in this pageant without her informed consent, being too young to give it. Her parents have presumably given it for her, and normally they are assumed to be doing it in the young person's best interests. But we make our own judgements: if we think it is a matter of exploiting a child for secually-related purposes for commercial gain, we can perfectly well decide not to be any part of it. If it should be legal in the jurisdiction where it is occurs, which quite frankly I find incredible, that's irrelevant to whether we want to cover it. If I followed my own preference, I would have immediately deleted it as I have power to do , and asked for oversight, on the grounds of BLP. Since I am aware not everyone would agree, I think it wrong to use admin powers in that way just on the basis of my own feelings, but to ask for a community decision. Of course, if any other admin agrees with me one this, and does delete it on BLP, I will certainly support them. (asking for approval of this as an admin matter would have been an alternative course, but I think we make better decisions at AfD than at the admin noticeboards) If it were a child actor known primarily for playing sexualized roles, yes, I would support deletion, just as I would for a child induced into overtly sexual activity. If you claim this is not overly sexualized, this is personal judgment in either direction, and we will have to go by the community. (That the UK permits this given their other attitudes in the general subject I think a weird anomoly. I consider the UK laws on what it considers child pornography go very far into what I do not consider pornography. and are in their operation sometimes harsh to an unjustified extent. And I am willing to accept almost anything as legitimate sexual activity between young people. This is not among young people, but commercial exploitation. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um - are you saying that I am claiming "this is not overly sexualised?" If so, then I am kind of offended by that - I've made my distaste for the whole thing pretty clear. Frankly, I think these pageants are vile and exploitative and to be honest I'm sick of the Fashion AFD category getting all the 19-year old "beauty queens" whose main talent seems to be prancing around in bikinis and stripper shoes dumped in here as IMO they really don't have much to do with fashion, but I accept this one being here due to the associated clothing line. I haven't voted either way because personally, I don't like the fact the page exists AT ALL and personally, I think it shouldn't be here, but on the other hand, I'm not going to argue for deletion just because it seems it would boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even though I REALLY don't like it. Mabalu (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My meaning was "oversexualized to be appropriate for an article about a child in WP". We are not disagreeing that it is oversexualized by decent human standards, tho apparently not for the press and video standards in her country or the US. At some degree of that, I think you agree that we would not include a child, but as I said the level is a matter of judgement. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this page should be deleted. Sure you might not like some of the stuff she's done, but that doesn't mean it's grounds for deletion. She has an acting career, her own TV show, fans, and even music. Why would you delete all that just because of how she started? There's a lot of pages on Wiki of things people don't like, but you don't just delete them. P.S. Sorry I undid your proposed deletion DGG, I'm new to editing and didn't see a way to discuss things other than in article edit comments (finally found it). WickedFabala (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not unsympathetic to the argument DGG raises here. I'm not any more a fan of the career path she's been made to undergo. But the subject is not known for a single event. She's not a non-public person. We strive to avoid prolonging victimization, but the subject here isn't strictly a victim. This isn't a criminal act or case. The subject's actions have been legal and the legally appropriate consent has been given. DGG, I, or any given Wikipedia editor may disagree with the appropriateness of that consent and that legality, but it is what it is. Even under BLP, it is not Wikipedia's role to right great wrongs. I simply do not see a policy-based cause for deletion here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is precisely that she is a victim, whatever may be allowed by the laws of her country. The policy is involved is human decency. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a victim. Her parents have put her in pageants, TV shows, and movies and that makes her a victim? It's not about human decency because nothing bad has happened here. WickedFabala (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry but the article's just cringe worthy If I'm totally honest, I have to agree with DGG tho that it is sexual exploitation IMHO, Sorry but I say delete per BLP. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have fairly high inclusion rules for minors with very good reason. People who are under 10 really need to be without a doubt notable to have articles. This person is not such, and there is no reason to have an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have to concur with Johnpacklambert's position. If there is any question of notability of children we should err on the side of caution. Finnegas (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not many notability Miyole (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Orenstein

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

Biography of a politician and artist which doesn't make any substantive or properly sourced claim that he was notable for either endeavour; his only stated notability as a politician is an unsuccessful candidacy for mayor of Ottawa in 1972, and his only stated notability as an artist is running a small and non-notable art gallery in a small town. As usual, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be sufficiently beefed up, but in its current state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Orenstein

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

When this article was created in 2004, Wikipedia's consensus allowed for articles on candidates for the leadership of registered political parties. However, due to the change and evolution in Wikipedia's inclusion rules, that's no longer a sufficient claim of notability in and of itself, if the person does not also have a more substantive claim of notability (e.g. actually holding an elected office, etc.) alongside it. While the comic book stuff might get him past WP:GNG if it could be referenced properly, the article cites no reliable sources at all, and is thus an entirely unsourced WP:BLP in its current state. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if a more substantive claim of notability, referenced to an improved array of sources, can be added — but in its current form it should be deleted. (I would suggest redirection to an article about the leadership race itself if we had one, but all we have is an omnibus list at Ontario CCF/NDP leadership elections whose content about the 1986 race consists only of a voting results table, so a redirect wouldn't actually serve any substantive purpose here.) Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass our current notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ontario Liberal Party leadership election, 1996. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Kells

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

When this article was created in 2004, Wikipedia's consensus allowed for articles on candidates for the leadership of registered political parties. However, due to the change and evolution in Wikipedia's inclusion rules, that's no longer a sufficient claim of notability in and of itself, if the person does not also have a more substantive claim of notability (e.g. actually holding an elected office, etc.) alongside it. The article, further, cites only a single reliable source which is not sufficient to claim that he gets past WP:GNG. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if a more substantive claim of notability, referenced to an improved array of sources, can be added — but in its current form it should be either deleted or redirected to Ontario Liberal Party leadership election, 1996 rather than existing as a standalone BLP. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. I don't see sourcing that reaches WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, even in view of the one HighBeam reasult [5], which provides a one-senentece more or less passing reference. I am the editor who, in 2011, added the article's only existing reference. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Agree with nominator's assessment, a non notable failed politician. Finnegas (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for offices are rarely notable. Exactly what level of holders of party leadership office are notable is also a question, but those who just ran for such an office clearly are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AOL TopSpeed Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show

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

This article is about the talk show of the Super Bowl game, which is not notable. This article was also previously merged but was undone. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's only one reason anyone even remembers the overstuffed name of this halftime analysis show, and it's because of a certain other event the sponsor wishes we'd forget. I wouldn't argue with a merge or redirect at all, as this is just 'they analyzed the first half and then these commercials aired', which is what happens with every halftime analysis show every year the Super Bowl takes place; how this article existed past 2005 is a mystery. No redirect either due to the commercial nature of the page title. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the little talk thingamajig before the halftime show isn't notable. It's an ad.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1-800-Charity Cars

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

Appears to fail our general notability guidelines and guidelines for WP:ORG. The two sources provided for the Orlando Sentinel are reliable, but, are from one source. The others are not reliable secondary. I failed to find multiple reliable secondary sources, but perhaps there is something behind paywalls I can't access. SarahStierch (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Seems more like an advert than an encyclopedic article. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. treating as a non contested PROD Tawker (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mundo Canibal

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

According to WP:NOTWEBHOST , this article is just written in web promotion tone. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 15:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Padova

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

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as she has not won any awards (only nominations), no indication that she is discussed in non-industry publications. Risker (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing the necessary coverage for a blp. Primary sources like interviews are not going to cut it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. So what if she isn't "discussed in non-industry publications"? Show me where it says that an individual must have coverage outside of their industry in order to meet GNG. I am not aware of such a guideline existing. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does she pass GNG? There is nothing extraordinary about her in any way, only industry publications, largely promotional. Risker (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sourcing seems to be interviews and the like. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. There's only one source that isn't outright kayfabe or PR material, and that one is dubious in those regards, and falls far short of the coverage needed to establish notability for a BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. treating as a non contested PROD Tawker (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Wave

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

Article does not fulfill notability requirements: It does not provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; just one or two. The only secondary sources that it has do not talk about the subject of the article; rather, about Microsoft technologies. The website itself is only mentioned in passing. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Davis

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are all related to individual and lack independence. reddogsix (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Article doesn't contain much notable info on her works. ///EuroCarGT 03:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable person. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. article has already been redirected to what appears to meet consensus... Tawker (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Pioneer Rail Committee

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

The committee is not notable. The railway station precint, perhaps is. It is State Heritage Listed. Nothing here in this article related to the station and surrounds that is worth keeping. Start over with new subject. One incoming link from Finley, New South Wales. Redirect? Bleakcomb (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to rename the article to Finley Pioneer Railway Station and remove mention of the committee? It is after all just a stub at this point. Hopefully someone in or near Finley can add material to the article. n2xjk (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why did you not add some references? They are easy to find. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I boldly moved it, per N2xyk's suggestion above, to title "Finley Pioneer Railway Station", which is more clearly wikipedia-notable, as it is a state-designated historic site apparently. N2xyk was the creator of the article. And I reworded it, still mentioning the committee that operates it, which can of course be mentioned. Frankly, why this AFD at all? It would be better to raise a suggestion at the Talk page about moving the article (or open a requested move at the Talk page, not engage dozens or more scattered Wikipedians into reviewing a deletion request. --do ncr am 01:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirect is appropriate. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect--Ciofeca (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to stick this in userspace if someone wants to try and salvage some content for a merge to another article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation geophysics

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE violation similar to Creationist cosmologies. There is no consistent nor coherent school of thought on what makes a certain geophysical idea "creation geophysics" and what doesn't. Flood geology is a topic that we already have an article on. jps (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems the majority of the references are creationist and unreliable. Can't find any reliable sources for the topic. Goblin Face (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 101.117.89.139 (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Contra the nom, it's fairly clear that "Creation geophysics" means statements made about geophysics by "Creation science" advocates. This may be WP:FRINGE, but it's spectacularly notable. There is no shortage of critical sources. In fact WP:NFRINGE specifically mentions "Creation science" topics as examples of notable topics. The relationship with the Flood geology article is discussed on this article's talk page. -- 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.30.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Creationism is, of course, complete bollocks, but this "article" raises it to a new level, combining a small number of post-hoc rationalisations based on cherry-picking of genuine scientific findings. Creationism and geophysics are orthogonal. That is all you need to know. Per policy, the article is a mix of novel synthesis, non sequitur and unreliable sources. It's telling that none of the sources claims to be about creation geophysics. Geophysics and creationism are two subjects with pretty much no intersection. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Creationism is contradicted by geophysics pretty much proves there's an overlap. Also, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There are literally hundreds of reliable sources (including many books) explaining why the Creationist take on geophysics is wrong, and those are all potential WP:RS for the article. There is notability here in spades. -- 101.117.30.180 (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free clue: I've been an admin here for over eight years, you don't need to lecture me on policy. This is a WP:POVFORK as much as anything else, and most of it is eithe redundant, or twaddle, or both. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:POVFORK of what? It's redundant to what? -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geophysics. jps (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, you've simply misunderstood the point of the article. The subject of the article is not geophysics per se, but the crazy (yet notable) things Creationists say about geophysics, and the refutations that have been provided by scientists. -- 101.117.57.43 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less the definition of a WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a compendium of crazy things people say, and the claim that these things are "notable" is misplaced. The problem is that crazy things said about geophysics -- no matter what your ideology -- are pretty much by definition not WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion in any articles about geophysics. You can't get around that by shunting them off to some ghetto to make them notable. jps (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the need for an article specifically on this subject, separate from creation science. Orser67 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a child article of Creation science, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. A merge back in might make sense, but not a deletion. -- 101.117.89.139 (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. What distinguishes this from flood geology? Plausible search term, I suppose, but surely we only need one article on the fringe topic of how creation science tries to explain rocks? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page. This is a broader topic, from which the flood geology material was separated out (and that probably was the most interesting part). A merge back into the parent Creation science article might make sense. -- 101.117.57.43 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think I stand by my belief that we can cover anything that has significant RS coverage in flood geology. They're not that different, and part of the idea of WP:FRINGE is that sometimes the fringe-topic writers just don't get to have articles for all the little categorization levels like non-fringe material would. Supporting my view on that is not-really-policy-compliant Google Books count analysis: I get well over 5000 hits on flood geology and seven for creation geophysics. Creation science is a broad parent article and I think a less adequate redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the material here can probably be merged into Flood geology, but happy to go either way. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find a single source, reliable or otherwise, that mentions creation geophysics, so there is no point redirecting it anywhere. That said, some of the material could be moved to Creation science or Young earth creationism - for example, the Barnes theory on the decay of the Earth's magnetic field, for which a number of reliable sources exist (e.g., Brush, Stephen G. (1984). "Ghosts from the nineteenth century: Creationist arguments for a young Earth". In Godfrey, Laurie R. (ed.). Scientists confront creationism. New York: W.W. Norton. pp. 49–84. ISBN 9780393301540.). RockMagnetist (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Growed Definition

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

In my opinion it is better to have this page in wiktionary and not in Wikipedia. Magioladitis (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leaving aside the obvious problem that this is avowedly a dictionary definition, it also appears to be original research of a somewhat dubious nature. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, has historical examples of growed in its entry for grow alongside the standard past tense grew, but no suggestion that growed and grew are different words. Cnilep (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claims that one article or another are a dictionary definition are often overused. In this case, though, it's literally true. That aside, I'm also fairly certain its fundamental (and uncited) claims are complete bollocks. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtland Journal

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

Tiny newspaper (self-reported circulation: 548) based in a tiny town. Sources are two listings in business directories and 2 trivial in-passing mentions. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes the circulation is small, but that's just an arbitrary number. It has over a 110 years of publication history and many of those are now archived online by other services. This paper is at present used as a source in four articles on Wikipedia: Trailways Transportation System, Brown Mackie College, Fort Lookout (Kansas), and Elizabeth A. Johnson. With over 100 years of publication and many of that now online, it is very likely that over time that number will grow (it shouldn't shrink) so there is reference value in holding this page. Couple with that the Kansas State Historical Society has mentioned that the paper printed multiple historically significant articles and its appearance in Google Books shows that it will continue to serve as reference value. Just because it's small doesn't make it un-important.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "important" doesn't figure among criteria for notability. And not all WP:RS are notable themselves either (although before accepting a tiny newspaper like this as an RS, I would want to see some evidence of strict editorial oversight). In any case, being used as a source on WP does not contribute to notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Important" speaks to WP:IMPACT, which can be a measure of notability. As for the "strict editorial oversight" the paper is a member of the Kansas Press Association which ought to serve that point. But beyond that, we've got more than enough to surpass the general notability guideline. The only thing that's left is that it has small circulation, but that's merely an arbitrary quantity and it wouldn't overturn GNG anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining exactly how this passes GNG?? --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." One might make an argument that the coverage isn't "significant enough" but simply put the sources provided address "the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Plain and simple.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read over the word "significant"? How do listings in two directories and two in-passing mentions constitute "significant coverage"?? --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not read over the word "significant" and I even quoted the definition of that as provided by GNG. Because the information in the article is all derived from the sources without any original research, it meets the standard of "significance" as set by GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A peculiar interpretation ot the meaning of "significance", basically you seem to argue that if something is verifiable, then it is notable. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't write WP:GNG. I'm just quoting what is written there. I didn't make the argument, the editors at WP:GNG made the argument and I'm showing how it applies here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 100+ year old newspaper cited by others, at least marginally passes WP:NMEDIA #2 ("served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history"), and in any event I think the encyclopedia is better with information like this than without it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the last part of your reasoning, could you perhaps expand on why you think that this newspaper "served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history"? Just having a long history does not equate "significant". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would think "because the Kansas State Historical Society says so" would do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps (I don't know how notable that society itself is), but I didn't see them say this. If they had, we'd have at least one good source here, instead of directory listings and in-passing mentions... You linked to one source from that society and one really has to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to find any mention of this newspaper. --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The paper also published multiple articles of historical value according to the Kansas State Historical Society." source. It's in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice coverage in sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I appear to be badgering, but I'm getting a bit exasperated by these references to "nice coverage". What coverage? The in-passing mentions? The directory listings? Where does anyone say that they have published articles of "historical value"? (All the society did was give a list of sources where info of possible interest might be found and that list seems to be completely uncritical, so I expect that any historian would only use those sources as clues that need further confirmation or as primary source testimonies). --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansas State Historical Society (now called Kansas Historical Society) did answer that question. I argue that they are a reliable source and can provide valuable information on what is and is not notable about history in the state of Kansas. These questions are asked and answered.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess then that I am dumb and dense. I don't see them answering any of the questions posed above at all. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to take this seriously, please cease participation in AFDs.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot back up your claim, that perhaps applies to yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backing up claim Step 1: Click on the link for the source. Step 2: Read. Step 3: observe Articles of historical note in recent issues of the Courtland journal included: "Eight months in Western Kansas in 1907", August 25, 1960; "The Glasgow Family Prominent in Early History," September 1; "Sorghum Mill-an Early Industry in Courtland Township,' September 8; "Fort Nonsense," a building erected by the Excelsior colony in north central Kansas for protection from the Indians, September 15; and "Courtland School reaches 72nd Anniversary," by Nina Engwall and Anona Blackburn, September 22. Step 5: realize that is 5 stories deemed of historical value in less than a month's time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have posted notices on the talk pages of the Journalism and Academic Journals wikiprojects to try to get some more views here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with that. It has already been listed in deletion sorting, which is standard practice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A key piece of information that is missing is whether this paper is or once was the newspaper of record in that community. A general-circulation small-town paper that has never been a "newspaper of record" is less likely to be able to meet WP:N than one that is or has been. When it comes to past or present small-town general-circulation newspapers of record, I'm willing to be a bit more willing to say "okay, maybe references that support WP:N exist that we haven't found yet" than I am with one that has never has been a newspaper of record. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable question, I suppose. Although not being the newspaper of record for the county wouldn't preclude the paper from achieving notability. The Belleville Telescope has been published for much longer, is also in Republic County and is likely the newspaper of record for the county. With it being the only newspaper in the community of Courtland, Kansas it likely is the official newspaper of record there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RenownedForSound.com

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

Non-notable website that fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficently sourced--Teo Pitta (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this site meets WP:GNG or WP:WEB at this time. Gongshow talk 00:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Deunov

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

This article has had issues of sourcing since creation and has been tagged for nearly seven years without being fixed. The sources that are cited are largely unreliable, the article reads as a personal essay mixed with fandom. This and the related Paneurhythmy document a minor sect of Steinerism, and do it rather badly. There's no evidence that Deunov has any significance beyond paneurythmy, and precious little evidence that paneurythmy itself is actually significant. Both serve at present as vehicles to promote fringe nonsense. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appears to be no serious scholarship about this guy, and even if there were, the current article is in such a state that it needs the WP:NUKEANDPAVE treatment. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources are extant to find out whether he can pass WP:BIO. jps (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:NUKE to stub, if reliable sources can be identified. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources that discuss him. Goblin Face (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two things that could do with a bit of consideration before deleting the article: firstly, the corresponding article on Bulgarian Wikipedia contains a very large number of references - I rather suspect that most or all of them are unreliable, but I would like someone with a knowledge of Bulgarian to confirm whether or not there are sufficient reliable sources there that could be used in an article here. Also, an alternative transliteration (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) seems to give a rather higher proportion of non-fringe sources, though I am not sure that any are particularly substantial. PWilkinson (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If coverage by reliable secondary sources that are independent of Deunov should be found, then an article can be recreated in proportion to that coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Existential Adulteration of Harry Potter

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

This article is simply about a piece of fan fiction. It has been self-published in the same way as many other such pieces, and does not even appear to be widely known in the fan community. This is basically just a piece of advertising, supported by no independent references. If this work does become notable in the future, there will be no problem in creating an appropriate article at that time. For now, it is an inadequately referenced puff piece, and should go. RomanSpa (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read the book, which you obviously haven't, you will know that this is not your average piece of fan fiction. It is used in the psychology community as an intervention, mainly with positive psychologists. It also links to existentialism, and adds to that literary genre. Regardless of how it was published, it lends itself to several fields, and therefore may have merit. I heard about this book in several Harry Potter fan sites, so just because you haven't heard about it on CNN, doesn't mean it is unknown. Dmoriarty123 (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see where this was covered in anything that would show notability for this work. The problem with asserting that something lends to various genres of literature and fields of research is that you must prove its notability by providing coverage in reliable sources such as newspaper articles, scholarly articles, and the like. I can't see where this has actually received any true coverage anywhere. You can claim that the work adds to this or that field or genre, but without proof it will still fail our notability guidelines. It isn't personal against the work, it's just that every article must assert notability per WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; insufficient notability as (not) evidenced by reliable 3rd party sources. DP76764 (Talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting, I suppose. But far short of the notability requirements. Were there to be reliable, independent coverage of its use as a tool in positive psychology, that might be cause to re-evaluate. But I'm certain that a book self-published in February of this year could not have attracted that sort of attention yet; indeed, no such sources are forthcoming. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be recreated if it is proved to satisfy our guidelines. Right now, it's too soon. Like S.O. above says, we need proof that it's used as a tool or aid. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book Transport

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

The article has no references. A web search does not lead to any reliable sources for the subject of this article. The article does not make any claim of notability. The primary author of the article is also the primary author of JTJ Technologies and Lovkesh Kumar which appear to be similarly non-notable and which have also been nominated for deletion. SchreiberBike talk 07:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google web first page only has ads and self-promotion. This is the type of "non-notable" that rises to the level of WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. This is one among several spam articles created by User:Tarachandi. Salih (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no indication of any notability - Seems more promo to me. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. The article is also inherently unreliable, with the firm variously founded in 2008 and 2014 (which would not matter were there to be reliable sources available). Part of a walled garden of associated articles. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JTJ Technologies

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

None of the references in this article link to reliable sources. A web search does not lead to any reliable sources for the subject of this article. The article does not make any claim of notability. The article Lovkesh kumar was already speedily deleted. The primary author of the article is also the primary author of Lovkesh Kumar and Book Transport which appear to be similarly non-notable and which have also been nominated for deletion. SchreiberBike talk 07:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. This is one among several spam articles created by User:Tarachandi. Salih (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence that this firm has attained notability. A list of prizes won by the firm's principals before they formed this firm (indeed some childhood prizes) does not help demonstrate notability, and indeed adds to the feeling of a set of walled-garden articles. AllyD (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lovkesh Kumar

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

None of the references in this article link to reliable sources. A web search does not lead to any reliable sources for the subject of this article. The article does not make any claim of notability. The article Lovkesh kumar was already speedily deleted. The primary author of the article is also the primary author of JTJ Technologies and Book Transport which appear to be similarly non-notable and which have also been nominated for deletion. SchreiberBike talk 06:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly CSD A7. A vanity biography listing prizes won as a child, none of which appear to be of encyclopaedic notability. More recently the subject has started a firm with his brother "as a dream" and has apparently "given a back support" for it. No evidence of attained biographical notability found. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. This is one among several spam articles created by User:Tarachandi. Salih (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gillette Ridge Golf Club

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

I do not see how this article is notable. The editor didn't add any references. A Google search doesn't turn up any relevant information. versace1608 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In its current state the article gives no clue of notability, and ultimately the subject might not be notable. In its favor, it is an Arnold Palmer design that seems to have gotten some good reviews. I don't think any important tournaments that have been played there yet. Minor events have included the ING New England Golf Classic (an LPGA Futures Tour event) for three years, and qualifying for the Travelers Championship. A HighBeam Research search comes up with about 70 hits, most of which describe the course in connection with these minor events.[6] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbilly Arm Drop Drags

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

Does not appear to be a notable organisation outside a small community. Is possibly a paid article. Shritwod (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources demonstrating notability. Verging on A7 territory. SmartSE (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some people have mentioned merging, which may be a viable solution, but there is not really any consensus to do any particular thing here. I suggest further discussion on the talk page to either identify a merge target everyone is happy with, or come up with improvements to the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Runet (terminology)

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

Move to Wiktionary, expand, or delete. It cites only Russian sources, includes several dubious sentences, and isn’t much more than a definition. Frungi (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Search for Runet + Russia + Internet see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- yields literally thousands of secondary sources in the English language. — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is notable and deserves its own article. I think it can't be explained in Wiktionary cause it's not just a simple word. And it's not really a dictionary word, it's more like a proper name. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has not been shown that the term is widely used outside the Russophone sphere. For all practical purposes, it is the same as Internet in Russian. That article will suffice to cover the subject. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is more than Wiktionary definition. See various sources in Russian page. --TarzanASG (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a DICDEF, it simply lists several ways that the term is used and points off to other articles. In order to justify an article, it would have to go beyond doing that. But there doesn't seem to be any scope for expansion as it massively overlaps with internet in Russia (which explicitly says it covers this). Although you could merge it into that, in reality internet in Russia already covers this material, so: delete.GliderMaven (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article duplicates Internet in Russia in scope. The term itself is a WP:Neologism (it isn't in the OED). The article title is a give-away. All sources and external links are in Russian, and Russian-language sources cannot attest the existence of English terminology. --Stfg (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially a fork of Internet in Russian--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
То, что в этом обсуждении не понятно что же именно дублирует статья о термине Рунет, показывает что слово живёт отдельной жизнью, поэтому удалять категорически нельзя. Иначе снова начнётся путаница, с которой я пытаюсь бороться. Нельзя путать русскоязычный Интернет и Интернет в России, у них совершенно разные и численные, и географические, и юридические показатели. Кроме того, посмотрите интервики к этой статье, там было намешано всё в кучу - и русский Интернет, и российский, поэтому я перенёс такие интервики именно сюда в эту общую статью. Я давно считаю, что статьи должны называться стандартизировано, а не "Рунет". Однако, под Рунетом чаще всего понимают вовсе не русский или российский Интернет, а их объединение. Поэтому я ещё раз за то, чтобы оставить статью об этом слове, так как оно чрезывайно популярно и имеет самостоятельную значимость. --TarzanASG (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have translated the above above text by User:TarzanASG from Russian to English using Google Translate (link).

“

The fact that this discussion is not clear what exactly duplicates the article about the term RUnet shows that the word is living separate lives , therefore , you should not delete . Otherwise confusion starts again , which I 'm trying to fight . Do not confuse the Russian-language Internet and the Internet in Russia , they are completely different and numerical , geographical, and legal figures . Also, look interwiki to this article , there was a mixture of everything in a pile - and the Russian Internet , Russian and so I suffered such interwiki it here in this general article. I long felt that the article should be called standardized and not " Runet " . However , under Runet often do not understand Russian or Russian Internet , and their union . So I once again for an article about to leave this word because it chrezyvayno popular and has independent significance.

”

– ~~Note to closer: within the text above by User:TarzanASG (translated into English), it states "you should not delete".~~ NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: User:TarzanASG already lodged a "keep" !vote higher up, so this is indeed just a comment. --Stfg (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've struck the above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale at the previous deletion discussion for this article:

Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as an almanac. This type of information is found in almanacs. Also, importantly, the term "Runet" also applies to other aspects of the internet besides just the internet in Russia. From the article: "in 2009, a Yandex report stated that Runet can pertain to sites written in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Kazakh languages, as well as sites in any language published in the national domain .am, .az, .by, .ge, .kg, .kz, .md, .ru, .su, .tj, .ua или uz".^[1] Therefore, a redirect to the Internet in Russia article would not improve the encyclopedia and would be inaccurate, because this topic also pertains to other countries. Also, using a translation service, the article in the reference within this comment contains a very detailed analysis of the term. The term is exceedingly more complex than a simple dictionary definition.

Source

^ (in Russian) Контент Рунета

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it needed a Russian-language source (and that all the sources in the article are in Russian) rather suggests that it is a Russian term, not an English one. --Stfg (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's two separate articles Internet in Russia and Internet in Russian and this article overlaps both and adds nothing while being written in dictionary style. I'm sticking with my above call for delete.GliderMaven (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Really Runet (terminology) is just a badly written disambiguation page; and there even is already a separate disambiguation page; we don't need two disamb pages.GliderMaven (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Internet in Russian. There may be slight differences, but this can be clarified on the merge page. Orser67 (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of note is that the article is tagged as expandable from the Russian Wikipedia article about the topic at Рунет (термин). To read an English-translated version of the Russian Wikipedia article, click here. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject is definitely notable, although the article fails miserably at explaining the actual phenomena. I would support merge option, but in opposite way: merge Internet in Russian into Runet. The article needs major surgery (actually writing proper article, moving over redirect) though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hodges (artist)

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

Article is about a banker turned photographer and questions have been raised about his notability for a long period. They remain unresolved and discussion with a representative(?) on the article's Talk page have failed to identify any further reliable news coverage, reviews or proof to support the article. I've edited many articles about creative professionals and this one, to me, looks a bit 'smoke and mirrors', based largely on CV's, online profiles and 'stuff on the internet'. There is proof of several nominations for photography awards (of unknown importance) but I'm not sure this is sufficient to meet WP:CREATIVE notability criteria. There is a claim to have work in the collection of the Shanghai University but I've been able to find any proof of this. Either way, his notability (or otherwise) needs resolving. Sionk (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Expoarts (talk · contribs) stated "I am one of his representatives" on my talk page. Expoarts wants to improve the article, and has kindly provided many potential sources on my talk page and the article talk page. I have tried several methods to get more eyeballs on the talk page, and so far Sionk has been the only one kind enough to offer assistance. GoingBatty (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sionk (talk · contribs) Is simply prejudicial, as evidenced by what is written above. Hodges is a banker turned "artist", who works with the medium of photography (as well as other media). The artist has had several major shows, has just completed a new major body of work, and has just had a documentary film made about him. Sionk (talk · contribs) writes above "discussion with a representative(?) on the article's Talk page have failed to identify any further reliable news coverage, reviews or proof to support the article". What nonsense is this editor talking? I have provided extensive information to assist in updating this artist's page, and notoriety was not in question prior to Sionk (talk · contribs) tagging it as such. The question mark against "representative" is intended to indicate what exactly? Also, this editor's statement of 'smoke and mirrors' requires clarification, as the editor seems to have no understanding of the arts and by self-admission is not a professional in the arts. The editor is an incompetent who for whatever reason, seems intent on deleting (not improving!) a perfectly legitimate page. Expoarts (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hodges' notability was questioned in 2010 and the poor sourcing was questioned in 2012. You say you have a conflict of interest and your name suggests you are a gallery, so I assumed you must be a representive of the artist. Rather than personal insults, try and stick to finding proof about the claims in the article and, particularly, finding significant news coverage about him (a requirement to prove notability). P.S. I have not self-admitted I am "not a professional in the arts", not sure where you got that idea from. Sionk (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep at a quick glance this article appears to be fairly well sourced. G S Palmer (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have enough sources to be notable. LordFixit (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Pollution Distribution

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

Delete is not sourced reliably and does not appear to be a notable distribution label. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Spinning Spark 00:42, 4 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 01:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Diamond

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

A mildly promotional article, with no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The external links (the nearest there is to any references) are to Jason Diamond's personal web site and to the web site of his business. Nor have I been able to find significant coverage of him in any reliable source. The article strives to try to give an impression of significance, using peacock-wording such as "recognized for his work within the medical community", but giving no source for that statement, nor telling us who recognises his work or in what way. The article also goes on to refer to "his role as a television personality", but that appears to mean that he once appeared on a television show, and even that is unsourced, and is not mentioned on either of his web sites. Note: Two earlier versions of this page have been deleted by PROD. A request was made to history merge the current version with an AfC page that it was based on, and for some reason the administrator who did the history merge also restored the history of those two earlier versions, and also a deleted attack page about a totally different person of the same name. I have removed the attack page, but left the other two articles about the same Jason Diamond as the present article. However, anyone checking the history of the article may find it helpful to know that the present article dates from 23:20, 2 July 2013‎, the earlier history being the other articles.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails applicable notability requirements. Also rife with unsourced unencyclopedic trivia, and written like a promo piece. --bonadea contributions talk 08:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since AfD is about topic and not content, whatever promo can be easily removed.. the Dr. keeps good records of all of his media mentions as seen here. Notability guidelines allow for specialists in a field who are recognized by popular media as experts. -- GreenC 05:32, 3 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 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid Truth

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

Non-notable album. Shritwod (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not coming up with much coverage for this album: a paragraph in the USA Today is helpful but everything else I have found is a trivial/passing mention, and I see no other indication that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. I would have suggested redirecting to the artist's page but there is a movie with the same title so I recommend moving Tabloid Truth (film) to this spot and adding a hatnote to direct readers looking for the album to the artist's page. Gong show 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, not notable. I'm really sick of all of these questionable music albums. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Todora

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

Non-notable individual. Owning a few restaurants does not mean that you merit an entry. Possible vanity piece. Shritwod (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing articles or other substantial coverage about this individual. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find some sources CNBC, ESPN (sorry could only find youtube link), and South Florida, multiple RS should suffice a keep. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna James

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:BARE, most of the sources are from her own website, doesn't seem to be a whole lot of reliable sources about her. She's mainly noted for dating Benedict Cumberbatch.

I'm re-nominating this because the first time it was nominated, one of the sock puppets heavily editing this page used another user name to nominate the page for keep. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent, indepth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 1 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 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another user has provided a list [7] of scanned images from printed publications. At least some of them appear to be from reliable sources and feature non-trivial coverage. Unfortunately they are hard to read, and some of them are foreign-language publications. It's unclear to me how many of them would count as WP:RS and therefore satisfy WP:BIO. --Drm310 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT per notability guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

Pass- Among other profiles found here (http://www.loveannajames.com/press.html), the Architectural Digest (this is like the bible of the design world) did a feature on her (http://www.loveannajames.com/pictures/slide366.jpg). She was also interviewed by The Telegraph. These are not minor mentions but significant coverage. I am working with my university design department (they have an archive of design magazines)to get bigger scans. The other print publications like Casa Lux, Homes and Interiors, House and Garden, etc. have websites. Casa Vogue and other fashion magazines with interior design special editions have too. These are specialized print publications and are known in design circles. If Wiki allows gossip mags (US Weekly) and tabloids (Daily Mail) for sources I don't see any reasons why these are not "proper" evidence for her significance.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Pass- She transforms antique furniture to contemporary art. Not just antique furniture by the looks of it because she also did a make-over with the cello by Natalie Clein. There is also the graffiti art she made which arguably is her most featured work, the Verona cabinet. Her trademark technique is making traditional/antique furniture into modern pieces.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Pass- Natalie Clein, well known cellist, commissioned James to do a makeover of her cello. She had a concert wherein she played the cello at the Wallace Collection, which, from its own Wiki page is a museum focusing on decorative arts which James specializes in. So it's definitely not just a showcase for the cellist but a showcase for the artist too. The Verona wardrobe has been featured in a lot of design magazines. See press clippings.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Pass Same as above. She has also been featured in "Tanya Baxter Gallery, London Design Festival, Orleans House, Clerkenwell Design Week, Homes & Interiors Scotland Exhibition, Culture Label, Urban Spaces and Tent London". Press clippings here too http://www.loveannajames.com/press.html (I will try to get bigger scans from my university archive for these print publications). These are exhibitions because she's not a painter or a sculptor. For a decorative artist, that's the equivalent of being featured in a museum. Unsung Artists (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is also have "significant coverage" of the topic. Which she has none. Most of the sources on her article page are from her own website. I'm also concerned that Unsung Artists is just another sockpuppet of Fairyspit. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is certainly the case that Ms James does the job the article says she does, and it seems to be true that she once dated an actor. However, simply doing your job does not make you notable. The various press clippings and articles about her are not critical assessments of her work, and do not describe her as making a notable contribution to her discipline: they are simply the bread-and-butter of her industry. This article seems to have been around for a while now, but it still doesn't say clearly why she's any more significant or worthy of our attention than any other decorative artist. Just being a decorative artist isn't enough: she has to be notable at her job. As for her once dating a famous actor, I merely observe that notability is not acquired by contagion. RomanSpa (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper RomanSpa. She is one of many decorative artists who do their job, well, but are not more notable than others. 94.64.116.225 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cariphalte

AfDs for this article:

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

Very short article with unclear notability and without the third party sources. No improvement since previous Afd four years ago. Also it was said during the previous Afd that there are many non-trivial hits by Google books, it is still questionable if these hits satisfy WP:RS and WP:GNG. As an alternative to deletion, it could be redirect to Asphalt and mention it there. Beagel (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, there are lots of reliable book sources: [8], [9], [10], [11]. They seem academic or otherwise reliable technical publications. Notable per WP:GNG.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first book does not qualify as independent source as it is done by Shell Bitumen. The second source mentions the name cariphalte only six times, although it has more than 400 pages. Cariphalte is not the amin topic of this book and it is clearly not a significant coverage. The third source mention it only in the 8th chapter, which is written by an employee of Shell Bitumen, so it is not an independent source. The fourth source is written and published by Shell, so, again, it s not an independent source. So, these sources are not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG but probably are enough for merging it into Asphalt. Beagel (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, even if I disagree with the assessment of the second book source (WP:GNG does not require the topic to be the main source topic, and the coverage is significant enough to be used as a RS), it is true that other sources seem not to be independent. However I'd say the source in the third book, while written by a Shell employee, is within an overall independent book, so it could half-qualify. In any case I'd rather be lenient and keep the article; otherwise merge. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:58, 3 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement on whether the coverage is significant or not. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jonze

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested speedy A7, does appear to have media hits, but most are articles by subject of article. Tawker (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable journalist, music writer. He has reviewed many albums and songs. Even in wikipedia, he has been referred.[12] 30,000+ results in Google, 200+ in google books, etc OccultZone (Talk) 17:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added more references about the subject, by different sources. OccultZone (Talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wrtes a lot but is not written about enough to make him notable.TheLongTone (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting you, subject passes WP:NOTABILITY. OccultZone (Talk) 09:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is there a significant amount of sources to support his notability, but he is also only 34; potentially has a longer writing career ahead of him, which means there could be more to add to the article. Adamh4 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage about Jonze instead of by Jonze. Notability is not inherited from those he has reviewed or interviewed. Sourcing does not support his notability, just that he's doing his job. His possible future career does not make him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: You require 1-2 reliable sources for proving notability. You've no idea what is 'notability'. There are at least 6 sources about Jonze from others, you lack the capability of judging sources. OccultZone (Talk) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the sources not labelled as being by Jonze. At time of writing

1 Best of a bad bunch but lacks any depth of coverage about Jonze. Just another story about someone else.

2 Not a reliable source, just Jonze talking about himself.

3 An advert by his employer. Not independent coverage.

4 Not a reliable source, just a listing.

6 A bunch of Wikipedia article clumsily bundled into book form. Extremely obvious that it's not a reliable source. Placed in the article by someone who lacks the capability of judging sources.

10 Just a quote from his work, no depth of coverage.

11 Op Ed piece telling an anecdote about Morrissey and Jonze.

12 Interview by Jonze, not about him

13 About Kaiser Chiefs, Jonze was just the reporter

There is not multiple independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage about Jonze. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that has been published by publishers like Hachette UK, John Blake Publishing, Voices.yahoo, etc, it cannot be devalued. It is funny that you haven't mentioned any of them in details. journalism-now.co.uk is also a reliable source, and it is written by Joe Rutterford, not Jonze, it is an interview. So once again, his notability has been proven. Just check how many results he has on net, and even inside wikipedia. For about last 7 days, I haven't looked him up, but you may want to read[13], and it was added to La Roux, before I would create this page. OccultZone (Talk) 06:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publication by a reputable publisher does not turn a trivial mention into in depth coverage. Yahoo Voices is not a reliable source. Quote from their disclaimer "Yahoo Inc. ("Yahoo") does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any articles, videos or other posted information on the Yahoo Contributor Network ("YCN") (collectively, "YCN Content"). All YCN Content is provided by YCN Contributors in the YCN community, like you. None of the YCN content is written, or edited by Yahoo employees." Journalism Now may have the byline of Joe Rutterford (who?) but its still just rote questions answered without any analysis. Question. Unquestioned answer. Journalism Now is also not a reliable source. Who are the editors? Who are the publishers? Who has oversight? Where is any evidence of their reputation for fact checking? And that La Roux piece you link is about La Roux not about Jonze. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last link, was meant to clear that Jonze has been highlighted by multiple sources for his reviews. Although its a joke that voices.yahoo is not a reliable source. Everyone has their guidelines, no one claims to be best really. But whatever they print is, it is not based on rumors, but something that happened. Although, Jonze is also mentioned by Daily Mail, Nytimes, etc. OccultZone (Talk) 04:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I don't think the Guardian talking about their own journalist makes him notable. The rest is either trivial or unreliable. Spinning Spark 15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Guardian itself, there are hundreds of WP:RS, talking about him. Even if we take his current position, he seems to have mentioned by many reliable sources, including nytimes, dailymail. You just have to look around, before making your opinion. OccultZone (Talk) 04:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Is this guy notable? From a he's-the-music-editor-at-The-Guardian standpoint, yes. From a Wikipedia standpoint, which demands reliable sources to supplement the claim (which OccultZone has yet to provide), I lean towards ~~Delete~~ although my gut says this guy is worth it. Or could there be a redirect to The Guardian page of some sort? I notice on the Guardian article that the opinion editor is listed, but no other editors. GRUcrule (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GRUcrule:, all you have to do is search "Tim Jonze". Recently, multiple news sites mentioned him,[14],[15] why would they, if he's not notable? So deletion is probably no solution here, only editing is. OccultZone (Talk) 04:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did Google him, and no, reliable sources did NOT appear. The sources you continue to provide don't qualify because they don't cover Jonze. That's the issue - the sources need to be about the subject of the article. Having one line mention somebody does not qualify, as most of the sources you've provided do (or are by the subject of the article himself). I'd encourage you to dive in deep at WP:NOTRS. Furthermore, your claim the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY above has no basis at this point because you haven't extrapolated on it - please explain in detail why you believe he passes that test. GRUcrule (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said that they specifically covered him, infact some do, but for his journalism. But that is same with just every other notable editor or journalist. And he's just 34 yet, like other editor mentioned. I am not getting how subject is not passing WP:Notability. Can you redirect me to the correct sentence? And he passes notability guideline, because he has been mentioned by a number of known media. OccultZone (Talk) 13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. Take a look at what WP:GNG has to say. The coverage must be "significant", sources must "address the topic" (ie Tim Jonze) "directly and in detail", not just "a passing mention". Spinning Spark 14:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark:, you are right about WP:GNG, but it is quite similar with many other journalist pages, for example Tim Dowling, Urmee Khan, etc. You can see that almost whole content comes from themselves. Nothing like anyone else has specifically covered them, in detail. GRUcrule had a made a good point, that article can be merged. I think there is potential to create a List of Guardian journalists, we even got List of ABC Evening News anchors. Not only this article, but many others will need to be merged. It will take some time, and discussion, but it will be a better alternative. OccultZone (Talk) 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, they are extremely variable in quality, and they are only reviewed on an ad hoc basis by volunteer editors. For that reason we do not usually accept comparisons with other articles as valid arguments (on either side) in a deletion debate. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your idea of a list article sounds good to me, but as it does not yet exist I am still in favour of delete. What you can do if the decision is to delete is to request that the closing admin userfies the article for you. You can then convert it to a list in your own time and move it back into mainspace when you are ready. Spinning Spark 15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, that's a great idea. OccultZone, since you clearly have an interest in this article, I think you'd be perfect to get that endeavor started in your sandbox if the closing admin agrees to userfy the Jonze article. As for the merge, what I suggested was that the infobox on The Guardian page has one editor listed, not all of them. Jonze can be listed there, and if you wanted to expand that article a bit, I'm sure reaching out to other editors on the page and discussing how to bring in a bit of content on some of the editors could be done. GRUcrule (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists of The Guardian is the new page. Tim Jonze now redirects to a subsection of this page. Thanks Spinningspark and GRUcrule for your ideas, insights, and thoughtfulness. OccultZone (Talk) 06:25, 5 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, Tawker (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should really have waited for the debate to be closed before redirecting, you are assuming what the decision is going to be, but I am happy with that, thus changing to redirect. Spinning Spark 07:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Changing to redirect as it currently is. GRUcrule (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose including Jonze in that list. Such lists should be made up of notable members, not everyone who has ever worked there. Wikipedia is not a staff directory. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Spinningspark, I had reverted previous version for now. OccultZone (Talk) 08:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There is significant widespread media coverage over the controversy about the subject's interview with Morrissey, both initially after publication (I added a couple to the article: Independent, Scotsman) and at the point when legal action ended in 2012. That plus the subject's ongoing career may be enough for meet biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More minor mentions around a minor event. Nothing in depth about Jonze. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is more than enough media coverage of this person with various sources. Meets notability requirements. Article could be improved though. LordFixit (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the media coverage about Jonze that you speak of? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rama: the rise of dharma

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

The film has yet to be produced with the only references actually referring to the film is a blog. Not indication that this will actually be made or become notable Peter Rehse (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The blog has articles, but not really enough to show how this is notable, as they're both two articles that only say that someone plans to make a film. I'm going to go ahead and remove the blatant falsehoods from the article because come on- Ang Lee is not going to be co-directing this. The only place that even remotely mentions him is in the article where the director hopes that Lee will come and direct with him. It's kind of the same type of thing where someone will mention that they hope that ________ actor will come and marry them, when it comes down to it. It's almost enough to where I'm tempted to tag it as a hoax, but I do think that the film is real. I just think that everything else in the article (Jackie Chan to perform, Lee to direct) is stretching the truth so much that it's pretty much a lie, possibly in an attempt to drum up publicity for the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's also troublesome is that despite a complete lack of confirmation of any actor starring in the film, someone is going around and adding this film to various filmographies of big name actors such as Rajinikanth and Tony Jaa. I've removed the claims, as there is nothing to substantiate them, but I'd like to ask (since it's most likely that this was done by the film's crew/director, meaning that they'll likely check in on this page) that anyone adding this please stop. Don't re-add these until the film has actually started active filming and we have multiple non-primary sources that confirm their participation and aren't just listing rumors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As even IMDb tells us the film project is "in development" I think it is safe to state that at the most generous, this article is simply Too Soon. Interestingly, the film's official blog does share sources speaking about the film being "in development",[16][17] supporting my feeling this is TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pham the hung

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

Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Needs reliable citations so we can determine he existed, but if he did and he held the positions listed then he may be notable. Needs renaming though. The current title makes him sound like a cartoon character! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to move it while discussion is open, but per MOS:CAPS the correct title here is Phạm Thế Hùng. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "references" here are links to the Vietnamese Wikipedia; the two that aren't are to a personal family tree site for an ancestor of his, and to a government site. In other words, not a valid reliable source in the bunch. Delete unless real sourcing can be found and added; no prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write a good and referenced new version. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a run of the mill civil servant. I'm sure he was very good at his job and a lovely person, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arnhem train accident

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

8 years after the event I don't see how this meets WP:EVENT. No fatalities and it s not the role of WP to report every crash. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No long-term notability (or even short-term), and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there seems to have been the usual blaze of routine coverage when this originally happened, then... nothing. I don't think this is notable as far as rail accidents go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abi Griffiths

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

Autobiographical advertisment notability not supported by references. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. Only source given that mentions her is her website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papaursa (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Queanbeyan. Consensus to redirect following relisting; see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Merging content if desired can be done from history with proper attribution. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Gregory's Primary School, Queanbeyan

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

Non-notable primary school. We don't generally have articles for such schools, unless they are especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queanbeyan per the normal procedure for such articles. A more expanded mention might be appropriate in the suburb article if this is the only Catholic primary school. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queanbeyan per Lankiveil. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Novakov

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

does not meet WP:GNG (nominating on behalf of User:HarZim) SPat^talk 21:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal impact on citation indices. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- citation in the NY Times as a significant authority plus tenured full professor at a school with a significant art history reputation is enough to keep. Citation indices are not important for art curators; importance of exhibitions (Andrea Zittel, for instance) is what is important. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NYT is a good source, but what is concerning here is that other aspects that would help the case (exhibitions and such) are sourced with web ephemera or personal pages. For example, the sentence "Her writings on artists such as [many names here] has[sic] formed the basis for public art studies – an academic branch of art history and visual culture" is obviously notable, except that it is sourced by a document written by Novakov herself – it is therefore merely an unsubstantiated claim at the moment. There is other text having the same problem. I wonder if there are any actual WP:RS to substantiate these? I will look around a bit and reserve an opinion until later. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I agree, that it's problematic -- I hadn't had a chance to look too but, but her edited book of essays, "Essays on Women's Artistic and Cultural Contributions 1919-1939: Expanded Social Roles for the New Woman Following the First World War by Paula Birnbaum, Anna Novakov" has gotten quite favorable reviews in two important art journals. I only have access to one of them, unfortunately not the most prominent. Editing an anthology is a shaky point for notability, but she is singled out in that review for especially compelling and bold compilations. She also has a number of other reviews on JSTOR. It's not an overwhelming case, but I think with the NYTs it's enough. I also felt compelled to argue against Xxanthippe's invoking of citation indices again in a field where they're not used (what are the h-indexes of the top art curators, for comparison?) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another convention for academics' AfDs is that we don't weigh edited works the same as authored works – that is to say the former don't count for terribly much. (See e.g. this same argument David Eppstein just made at an AfD that closed last week.) I also don't think that tenure is critical here either. I will have time over the next day or two to look into this in detail. W.R.T. h-index, I see that thread has developed more over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) – will try to add more there too. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This is a close call for me, but I'd argue that the subject meets WP:PROF through criteria #7 (substantial impact outside academia in academic capacity) and #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). This is based on Michael Scott Cuthbert's arguments, plus the fact that the subject's edited book Veiled Histories, is currently in more than 200 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I was sorely tempted to close this as a keep, but although the current arguments are quite strong, this is admittedly a borderline case. As such, I'd like a bit more of a consensus to form. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In checking a little more closely, it seems that Veiled Histories and quite a few of her other books are, in fact, edited works rather than authored works. I agree with David Eppstein's opinion made at a recent AfD that the former does not carry the same weight as the latter. As for the books she actually authored, they seem to have very low holdings, e.g. Anton Azbe's Art Academy. Likewise, I cannot find any acceptable WP:RS beyond the single NYT piece from 1998. In my opinion, this single source, taken with very weak holdings, don't demonstrate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Agree with most of what you say here thought not the overall conclusion. My sense from reading dozens if not hundreds of reviews of edited volumes is that the citation of the level and quality of compilation here is significantly beyond what is singled out in most reviews. If only (sigh) we had the ability/time/money to bring in a group of high position art curators to help us understand better the sorts of things that distinguish a run-of-the-mill curator from someone who has made a significant (WP:GNG/WP:PROF/WP:CREATIVE) impact on the field. I suspect that our tools are very blunt here and the both Agricola44 and I are doing our best with very limited knowledge to sort it out. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I reviewed WP:N (notability), WP:BLP, (living persons), and WP:BIO (notability of living persons); she came out just barely notable. One reason is per Eric Yurken. She has influenced the world around her enough to be on Wikipedia. Another reason is that she just plain wrote too many books. Searching her on Google Books, she wrote many works, including some where she collaborated with other authors. The only issue is independent sources, but other than that, this article ought to stay...for now. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction

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

No specific inclusion criteria, example farm. Tagged for notability since 2009. This is not my last name (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User did not format the nomination correctly, adding the entire text of their nomination directly to the AFD index page instead of tagging the article or creating a proper nomination page for this discussion. I am repairing the nom to proper process, and have no opinion on the article's keepability or deletability. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - while it probably meets WP:LISTN if you looked hard enough, it would have to be pruned immensely. ansh666 17:37, 29 March 2014 (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) 23:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Various online articles on rail guns, coil guns, kinetic energy weapons, and similar systems, mention fictional sources such as the films Eraser and The Last Starfighter, the novels The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein) and Earthlight (Arthur C Clarke), TV shows Babylon 5 and Stargate Atlantis, and video games such as Quake, MGS, Fallout, Red Faction, and Halo Reach.[18][19][20][21][22] I can't find much detailed discussion (there are books on science in some franchises like Star Trek, but I can't find anything relevant to this). I thought there would be more sources. I think some of this was put into a separate article because people didn't want it in the main articles, so I'm reluctant to say merge (aside from question of where to merge: Kinetic bombardment#In science fiction is overlapping). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per Colapeninsula showing that the list subject has received secondary coverage. Orser67 (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football teams with more supporters on Facebook

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

Unencylopedic list with no signs of significance. Could be merged into Supporters' groups as it is listed on the page. ///EuroCarGT 05:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More supporters than what? What a totally pointless list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is utter rubbish and has no place in an encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 09:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably the most ludicrous concept for an article ever, totally unencyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I'm writing this, but this topic may be notable. A number of possibly reliable sources seem to have covered this topic over a number of years: Goal.com, 2012, Bleacher Report, 2013, Deadspin, 2013 (NB: American football), Caught Offside, 2011. On the other hand, this seems like an easy way to grind out a blog post without having to do much research or thought; the football-blog equivalent of a Buzzfeed quiz. Pburka (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, more supporters than what? Secondly, the number of likes a person or an organization has on Facebook is not notable in and of itself — and since it's a number that's subject to constant fluctuation as new fans click "like" and old ones get disillusioned with the team and click "unlike" or quit Facebook altogether, a dynamic list of this type is virtually unmaintanable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn't this speedily deleted as patent nonsense? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not gibberish. Speedy deletion is already massively abused; let's not promote further misuse. Pburka (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this absolutely viotates WP:LISTCRUFT. – Michael (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Pburka is completely right in your way to think, he understood what is the goal of the article. My opinion for the users that can't understand "more supporters", the article can be renamed changing more for most. Furthermore, the warning that says this article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages has to be removed, because now there isn't more links to any disambiguation pages. Mgaprbr (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to note that has a lot of reliable sites that disclose almost monthly lists of football teams with more supporters and obviously my vote is to ~~Keep~~! Mgaprbr (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List has an ill-defined scope (more supporters than what benchmark, or an increasing number of supporters compared with what prior point in time?). It is doomed to be incomplete and, if the latter definition of more is used, will frequently go out of date. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate trivia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List crap that won't be missed! -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. And the award for most pointless list created on Wikipedia in 2014 goes to... Jrcla2 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, plus its title makes no sense. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Incomprehensible title. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure Listcruft. Article, inherently begs the question, "More supporters than what?" In the ground? Obviously, most big clubs have more fans than they could hold in their stadium. In general? Probably not, why would a "facebook fan" not be a general fan? How do you establish what these terms actually mean anyway? Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote, now this article is unbecoming and has to be deleted now! Delete! Mgaprbr (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lovelle Rooks

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

promotional article for self published author. His books are not even in worldcat. Sourced to amazon and to B&N, neither reliable for notability , as they will sell anything. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promo article for self-published author. No claim of notability. No significant coverage or awards.--Dmol (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by a WP:SPA account (described as "McG PR" on their user page) sourced only to primary and sales sites. The subject's books are via a self-publishing firm and multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) are turning up nothing to indicate that he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Harsh (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese school

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

Unsourced stubby dictionary definition, mostly OR and inaccurate (There's at least one school here in the UK that doesn't cater to Americans, Canadians etc.). Could perhaps be redirected merged if there's a suitable target. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. The nominator is right about the current state of the article, but there's several dozen incoming links to this page from other articles[23], and it certainly has the potential to be a notable topic. It's a little hard to search the topic "Chinese School" because so many hits relate to schools in China. Here's a book entitled Becoming Chinese American: A History of Communities and Institutions that has two chapters about Chinese schools in the U.S. [24] GBooks searches for strings like <"Chinese school" America> and <"Chinese school" Britain> produce other potentially useful results such as [25] and [26] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; it definitely needs to be expanded, but it's likely that a good number of articles, essays, and books about Chinese-Americans cover these, and it's not too close to any other topic we currently have an article on. Tezero (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, notable without question. There are literally thousands of these established throughout the world by Chinese immigrant communities. Stubby articles on notable subjects should be expanded, not deleted. This is not a dictdef and is similar to articles like international school, madrasa, yeshiva, and other types of specialized educational institutions. —Lowellian (reply) 06:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." This confusion is what we seem to have here yet again. There's plenty more than can be said about such expatriate schools. See the Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora], for example. Andrew (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I can see this is unlikely to be deleted but there are some points that need addressing. As a definition, it only covers one particular meaning. A "Chinese school" could also be a school in China. It could be a school teaching in the Chinese language. It could also be a language school teaching Chinese to non-Chinese. The one nearest me teaches Chinese to people with both Chinese and English ancestry. The Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora examples seem mostly of teaching the curriculum in Chinese, in South-East Asia.

The article sort of qualifies this by excluding schools in China with "In Western countries" but it's bad practice to have an article focussed in such a way. We have e.g. Value added tax for the tax on a global basis and Value Added Tax (United Kingdom), one of many, focussed on it in the tax in a particular region. As noted above there are Chinese schools elsewhere in Asia than China, probably in many other countries of the world, so "In Western countries" isn't accurate either.

International schools, madrasas and yeshivas are all full schools, i.e. they take students full time, and are all well understood. There's no 'Chinese cultural school' equivalent to a madrasa or yeshiva while international schools are for students of all backgrounds, including Chinese, so there are no obvious parallels between those articles and this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Martin (writer)

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

Has contributed to various shows, but no real evidence presented of the importance of his role in the various writing teams. His one individual work, Coalition chronicles has only 27 worldcat holdings, DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it's a bit too soon. I am not seeing substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but how is it "too soon"? How is further reliable coverage bound to appear later? Tezero (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to meet WP:GNG. LordFixit (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: though there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, some are not independent of him, and the reliable sources only really mention him, not discuss him in depth. Therefore I do not believe it meets WP:GNG. BethNaught (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sockpuppetry aside, the sources Rhododendrites addressed were considered by several experienced editors to meet WP:GNG, and in fact, once those sources were in view, there were no arguments indicating deletion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Average Homeboy

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm of the opinion that the previous three nominations are reason enough. gsk 08:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: part of the reason I'd argued for this to go through AfD again is because the article had far more coverage when it was re-created than it did at previous versions of the article here and at Denny Blaze. (previous versions either had none or only about 2 sources) There has been some further coverage in 2010 (Time magazine) and in 2011, and while I'm unsure if it's enough to justify an article, I do think that it should be looked at again and judged on the current sourcing. If the current sourcing isn't enough, we should then salt the pages. It's just that this is a bit more than what was at previous versions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Please note that GSK has entered a reply to basing his/her deletion of this article on the grounds of past opinion while ignoring reasonable questions. Let's look at the facts of this article. This "Average Homeboy" page has more coverage and sourcing than the prior pages. Also, the text was NOT substantially the same. This "Average Homeboy" article had a new author along with new credible references. These facts should be considered.

Regarding notability, I would argue that Time.com and USAToday.com are notable sources which can be easily verified by clicking on the references. They merit notability on web content alone. Also, with media references such as Comedy Central and Vh1 Television Network Appearances for Average Homeboy is Significant Coverage. I would argue that this article is notable.

I would also like to argue for inclusion since the coverage has been over a relatively wide span of time. There have been other third party Wikipedia pages written which contain "Average Homeboy." You can find "Average Homeboy" on these Wikipages:

"Tosh.0" - (Season 2 Episode 5,) "Doogtoons," "ROFLCon" (Denny Blaze 2008), and "Group X."

Another topic of argument is fairness and indiscriminate inclusion of topics. On the Wikipedia Page, "Group X" who has only 4 references listed, the article says "Group X" performed at ROLFcon in 2008 with Denny Blaze (Average Homeboy) along with 3 other Internet Stars, all 3 of which have Wikipedia articles, including "Trocadero (band)" with 0 references and "Lemon Demon" with 4 references. To exclude Average Homeboy is simply unfair.

Far LESS credited articles exist on Wikipedia: "Animutation," "Tyson (dog)," "Little Superstar," "Dancing Baby," "Megwin," "Samwell (entertainer)," "Melody Oliveria," "Phil Mason," "Everyday (video)," "Salad Fingers," "Straight No Chaser (group)," "Pants on the Ground," "Matt Harding," "Numa Numa (video)," "Beckii Cruel," "Dramatic Chipmunk," "Tiffany Alvord," "Joe Luginbill," "Rucka Rucka Ali," "Peter Oakley," "Nataly Dawn," "Jordan Maron," "Jack Conte," "Hampster Dance," "One Pound Fish," etc.

~~Thank you for considering these facts regarding the "Average Homeboy" article.~~ "Rayhazen" — Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above struck due to confirmed sockpuppetry -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Rayhazen: Please read WP:WAX and WP:OSE. Speaking about other topics as a defense of another is rarely helpful. What we may consider is that the previous deletions of Average Homeboy-related articles were 7 years ago and Denny Blaze was two years ago,[27][28][29] based more on how the article were written and sourced and less on any animus toward the entertainer... and his career, while not earth-shattering, has not sat completely still.[30][31] There actually may be room for an article on he and his works, if neutral and properly sourced. I suggest you to build one here: User:Rayhazen/sandbox/Denny Blaze and seek input from experienced editors (specially those who commented at earlier discussions) in making it better and more suitable for mainspace. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support sandboxing as an interim until the article is vastly improved and up to general Wikipedia standards. gsk 18:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GSK False Claims of Sock Puppetry

GSK is obviously upset that I have contested the deletion of the Wikipedia Article, "Average Homeboy." I would like to complain that GSK isn't following common Wikipedia Procedures with his lack of respect for other editors. Not only did I contest the deletion of the article, but also Tokyogirl79 did too. I am 100 percent confident that any admin will find that we are 2 different editors. No Sock Puppetry has occurred with this argument to prevent deletion. Rayhazen Rayhazen Rayhazen (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You actually think I'm upset? And contrary to your comment on my talk page, I don't believe Tokyogirl is absolutely against its deletion either. She seems to be in between keeping it and deleting it. gsk 06:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly undecided, myself. I do think that it could squeak by, but I can understand where the arguments for deletion are coming from. I mostly want this judged on the new sources, so that way we can show that we have taken them into consideration for whatever way this eventually goes- keep or delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggested it be re-built in a sandbox and under guidance. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good suggestion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While it seems to be popular, I don't think the importance was demonstrated by any of the refs. While there are lots of sources, but many mention this video as a "best of" or "worst 10" type collection. It also does not seem to meet the more stringent notability guideline for a song WP:NMUSIC. However it may meet WP:NWEB, which is significantly more lenient in this regard. It is also hard to decide on which criteria to use since it appears this person has begun trying to take their music out into live venues. Thus would it not be judged under WP:NMUSIC, since WP:NWEB refers to "content solely distributed on the internet"? Beakermeep^(talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was myself considering it under WP:NWEB type criteria since the coverage is for the video as a whole rather than just the song. I figured it wouldn't pass NMUSIC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I haven't been watching/following this article and didn't participate in previous AfDs but I'm a little surprised to see this one as so controversial. Just checking Denny's website provides a few more newspaper/magazine stories, several of which are features/profiles. Most are local and likely wouldn't be sufficient on their own, but combined with what's already used in the article I find it to be far past the threshold of GNG/NPEOPLE. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notorious enough by every measure. LoverOfArt (talk) 09:56, 11 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. I know it's unusual to do a third relist, but given the extensive AfD history this article has had, and the sockpuppetry which has affected the current AfD, I felt it was worthwhile to run this for one more week in the hopes of generating a clear consensus. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Meets WP:GNG. STATic message me! 02:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The link provided by Rhododendrites shows that the subject has received sig coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] (in Russian) Контент Рунета

[1]